User talk:68.227.190.25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Wiki demo
If you are one of Mr Geoghegan's students, or one of Mr Cook's, please pass this message to them.
Messrs G & C, I see you are using Wiki to teach you students about trusting sources. Jolly good. I am extending the lesson, to you as well, in the way of Wikipedia. As you can see, I have reverted your edits to Charles Dickens and American Parliamentary Debating Association. You chose interesting examples. Dickens is a frequently vandalised and well-watched article. Obviously nonsense edits are usually reverted very swiftly, and on the Talk page you will see there is a discussion about possibly Protecting this article. The APDA article I know little about: but your tone alerted me to investigate the history.
To more subtle false assertions, Wiki is certainly vulnerable. Malicious or innocent falsehoods can hang around for a long time until someone knowledgeable finds/corrects them. Learning point: Always follow references if possible. And caveat lector for everything you read on the internet - and elsewhere. I've just been watching a documentary about the Oxford English Dictionary discovering some of its sources were false. The dictionary, however, had not asserted the truth of the statements - merely repeated them with a reference to the source. This is what Wiki is increasingly trying to do.
And I, as a former magazine and book editor, can tell you you'd be shocked at the amount of repetition of unverified statements in print, including a children's encyclopedia by an internationally reputed brand cobbled together from other books by freelance writers ignorant of their subjects. I think it's excellent that your students should learn that, just cos it's in print, it doesn't make it true!
The third point, also I think a purpose of your APDA edit, was to demonstrate the possibility of bias in writing. Again, definitely a lot of it about. On Wiki bias has a different effect than on "authorative" works. In single-author works, or publications by coherent groups, there will always be a prevailing point of view. That point of view may be more or less pernicious (and the Encyclopedia Britannica has had some hair-raising examples over the decades). Wiki, however, is edited by an increasing number of people from an increasing number of countries. There is often discussion of what constitutes a neutral point of view on a article, or what should be included. These debates can be read by all in the article History, and frequently an article ends up expressing equally the existence of two opposing points of view. To my mind, not only is the article less biased for this process, but the need to engage with the question while reading is itself a virtue. Another learning point.
I think of Wiki as a public park: you have to be careful there but it is nonetheless an enormously valuable amenity. Learning to use it appropriately can only be a Good Thing.
By all means direct your students to your edits (in the History tab above each article). And let them see how Wiki works with the reversions.
If you'd like to reply, you can do so here or at my User talk:JackyR page.
All best wishes, JackyR 02:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (former teacher & book editor)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
