Job Discussion Forums

thelmadatter · Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: discussion

good to know I can start a discussion on the most serious and pressing matters of the day! ha ha ha ha

Seriously tho... that people go in and find Wikipedia wanting on a subject of their choice is the impetus for my projects and for Wikipedia itself. Most articles in Wikipedia are written by enthusiasts of the subject. (however, I must disappoint johnslat and tell him that WP does not allow for original research!) However Wiki itself acknowledges that this leads to bias in the overall corpus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias )

I feel that getting our students to contribute to WP is one way to counter some of the bias they discuss on that page (its not the whole solution but its gotta help at least a little)

Our students have the advantage of being bilingual... something the average native English speaker is not (I know most of us are but we arent exactly normal, are we?) so they have access to information and a perspective that few other Wikipedians can share. We, as their teachers, can act as a kind of conduit to get them participating in the global community, even if it is in a very small way.

Stephen Jones · Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 4124

The point, John, is that rusmeister raised the entry on polyamory as an example of the weakness of wikipedia, so all subsequent discussions have been following that.

rusmeister · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia

The other big weaknesses which wikipedia supporters seem determined to ignore is that for all that anyone can log in and edit, anyone can log in and edit. Whoever has the most time and determination will have their version standing as truth most of the time regardless of whether the information they enter is true and factual or not. This hardly makes it more reliable; indeed, the most fanatic people wind up running the show, presenting their own versions of facts and history, and more and more people cite it as a reliable source.

Don't know why that's so hard to see. I used 'polyamory' (a recently imvented word) as an example because I personally took part in those pages. It was originally a subheading under 'polygamy' and as a result of the controversy it got its own page. The people with the most time on their hands and determination win. I don't have time to go in every day to try to point out the little fact that an awful lot of people see it as merely a euphemism and the 'definitions' given as efforts to justify and prettify something that is pretty ugly. I'm not going to debate that here, but it is a fact that a lot of people see it that way, but people who practice various forms of polygamy are more determined, therefore their version will be 'the truth', and efforts to point out the view that it is merely a euphemism will be regularly deleted. It's an ideological war. You can stand on either side, but you can't pretend that this will somehow be impartial and not used in that war.

Wikipedia can be useful, but it is not superior, and has these dangers that people seem to want to ignore.

ls650 · Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 3484 Location: British Columbia

rusmeister · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia

I'm just saying that people are quoting this thing authoritatively, yet at any given moment, the source that they are taking as Gospel may be and often is completely partisan. This is particularly important on anything connected to controversial topics (not just the topics themselves). Ex - if arguing something about a Greece or Armenia vs Turkey tussle, a reference to history (obliquely connected) could call up a page that would either completely ignore or unreasonably exaggerate what serious historians would see as distorting the facts, in order to support an argument. It's quite unreliable in those situations.

Serious researchers will know better. But the average Joe will think he is well-informed when in fact he isn't.

Guy Courchesne · Joined: 10 Mar 2003 Posts: 9650 Location: Mexico City

Phil_K · Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 2041 Location: A World of my Own

I'm glad Guy mentions the Bible! Millions of people take it as the absolute truth, and the only advantage it has is time! Just like all new technology, there are always people who pooh-pooh the idea at first.

Regarding Wikipedia, I love it. I've "corrected" a few bad articles about Mexico, and have recently complete my first original article about an ex-classmate in secondary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Chilcott. No-one seems to have edited it yet, but that doesn't make me the authority on her. I did it because I wanted to know more about her and hoped that someone could fill in the details.

Phil_K · Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 2041 Location: A World of my Own

Well, it seems it has been edited! I didn't write the bit about her affair, although I knew about it, as I didn't think it was appropriate. There you go - that's democracy.

johnslat · Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject:

Dear Phil_K,
I went to the site you provided and read about Susan Chilcott. I was very sorry to learn about her untimely death.
I think your memorializing your ex-classmate is a lovely tribute to her.
Thanks for providing the link.
Regards,
John

thelmadatter · Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: WC

spiral78 · Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash

Not having read through the entire thread, I won't comment generally, but thelmadatter is right. My uni students are encouraged not to use sources such as wiki., and, quite honestly, many of the papers I've had to fail in recent months relied heavily on such general sources. This seems to reflect a lack of initiative to locate and take the time to absorb more authoritative (and dense) information sources.

wildchild · Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 519 Location: Puebla 2009 - 2010

spiral said:

spiral78 · Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash

In terms of what will fail a paper at my uni, it's universal across all faculties that students are not encouraged to use such sources. That's not my personal prejudice.

wildchild · Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 519 Location: Puebla 2009 - 2010

you don't make the rules, you're just followin' 'em.

understood.

thelmadatter · Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: debate

I dont think there really is a debate here on this thread about using WP (or any other encyclopedia) as a research source... those of us like it and diss it seem to agree that one should NOT use it as a source when writing a paper.... The reason is why. Those of us who like WP, say not to use it for research simply because it is a terciary source... those who diss it seem to (not just on this board but in general) seem to think that by somehow associated with WP, they lower their status as intellectuals simply because articles are written and reviewed by "the masses"...

A bit snobbish, doncha think?

What about as a source just to learn something new for its own sake? How do you feel about using a source like WP for that?