Comments on: Think you know Wikipedia? You might… or you might just think you do http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jon Awbrey http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/comment-page-1/#comment-70850 Jon Awbrey Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:40:03 +0000 http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/#comment-70850 Kim, I recommend that academics, journalists, librarians — anyone who is concerned with public education and information and who wishes to promote both critical thinking and information literacy — please, please do more homework on the real character of Wikipedia before you send this dangerous cult any more hapless victims. One resource for your research would be <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/" rel="nofollow">The Wikipedia Review</a>. Kim,

I recommend that academics, journalists, librarians — anyone who is concerned with public education and information and who wishes to promote both critical thinking and information literacy — please, please do more homework on the real character of Wikipedia before you send this dangerous cult any more hapless victims.

One resource for your research would be The Wikipedia Review.

]]> By: Gregory Kohs http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/comment-page-1/#comment-70832 Gregory Kohs Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:20:33 +0000 http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/#comment-70832 Hey, Librarians! Before you close this chapter on Wikipedia idolatry, make sure you read what Danny Wool (the Wikimedia Foundation's second employee ever) has to say about the guy who co-founded the site and makes sure lots of money keeps pouring into the system: http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/03/money-for-nothing-chicks-for-free.html Definitely keep "scratching beneath the surface". There's more. Such as how the Foundation is responsible for just ONE tax form each year, and they botched it both in 2004 and in 2005, so that it would be obscured that 60% of their Board were co-stakeholders in Wikia, Inc. Feel free to contact me if you want to see examples of "planted errors" that do NOT get changed quickly. Hey, Librarians! Before you close this chapter on Wikipedia idolatry, make sure you read what Danny Wool (the Wikimedia Foundation’s second employee ever) has to say about the guy who co-founded the site and makes sure lots of money keeps pouring into the system:

http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/03/money-for-nothing-chicks-for-free.html

Definitely keep “scratching beneath the surface”. There’s more. Such as how the Foundation is responsible for just ONE tax form each year, and they botched it both in 2004 and in 2005, so that it would be obscured that 60% of their Board were co-stakeholders in Wikia, Inc.

Feel free to contact me if you want to see examples of “planted errors” that do NOT get changed quickly.

]]> By: Kim Duckett http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/comment-page-1/#comment-70624 Kim Duckett Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:16:40 +0000 http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/#comment-70624 I think Wikipedia is amazing! What an incredible social phenomena and what an excellent tool for helping students (and others) become exposed to how information is created and debated, a process that typically takes place out of sight and among a select few. It's a great tool for discussing the concept of expertise, collective intelligence vs. the acknowledged expert, review by consensus vs. formal peer review, and even 'what is a reference work?' When you talk to most people about what they know about Wikipedia, they'll say (1) it's an online encyclopedia, (2) anyone can add to the content, and (3) sometimes the content is wrong. But they don't know how the content even gets in there because they are approaching it as *consumers* of information rather than *creators* or *contributors*. Showing students things like the Discussion and History tabs -- or even the Edit tab -- opens up a whole new perspective on the multifaceted nature of the Wikipedia. They can get a clearer understanding about how people actually debate the content there (Discussion tab) and that the authors truly are anonymous (History tab). You can do so much with these concepts. Then you can leverage this new knowledge to compare and contrast other concepts you're teaching. At NCSU a couple of colleagues and I are creating a multimedia module called Wikipedia: Beneath the Surface that is premised on the idea that if we help students scratch beneath the surface, they'll have a richer and hopefully more mindful perspective on how Wikipedia fits into the information landscape. It's designed so other libraries can use it since the content is conceptual rather than institution-specific. Let me know if you'd like more information about it. I think Wikipedia is amazing! What an incredible social phenomena and what an excellent tool for helping students (and others) become exposed to how information is created and debated, a process that typically takes place out of sight and among a select few. It’s a great tool for discussing the concept of expertise, collective intelligence vs. the acknowledged expert, review by consensus vs. formal peer review, and even ‘what is a reference work?’ When you talk to most people about what they know about Wikipedia, they’ll say (1) it’s an online encyclopedia, (2) anyone can add to the content, and (3) sometimes the content is wrong. But they don’t know how the content even gets in there because they are approaching it as *consumers* of information rather than *creators* or *contributors*. Showing students things like the Discussion and History tabs — or even the Edit tab — opens up a whole new perspective on the multifaceted nature of the Wikipedia. They can get a clearer understanding about how people actually debate the content there (Discussion tab) and that the authors truly are anonymous (History tab). You can do so much with these concepts. Then you can leverage this new knowledge to compare and contrast other concepts you’re teaching.

At NCSU a couple of colleagues and I are creating a multimedia module called Wikipedia: Beneath the Surface that is premised on the idea that if we help students scratch beneath the surface, they’ll have a richer and hopefully more mindful perspective on how Wikipedia fits into the information landscape. It’s designed so other libraries can use it since the content is conceptual rather than institution-specific. Let me know if you’d like more information about it.

]]> By: Mitja http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/comment-page-1/#comment-70586 Mitja Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:15:46 +0000 http://acrlog.org/2008/02/27/think-you-know-wikipedia-you-might-or-you-might-just-think-you-do/#comment-70586 testing the system by purposefully adding misinformation is WRONG and should be avoided. testing the system by purposefully adding misinformation is WRONG and should be avoided.

]]>