December 2005 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-l] Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia is not a reliableinformation source
by Rowin Young 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

I assumed that older versions of articles could often be found on the wayback machine (http://www.archive.org/)? I'm prepared to be proved wrong :-) I think the main reason I use it is because I love the name 'wayback machine'... I've found this a really interesting discussion. I taught until about a year ago, in Scottish and English literature and linguistics, and at both 'traditional' universities and via distance learning - had to give up because my 'main' job requires too much travel for me to be able to commit to teaching at regular hours. I was always quite pleased when I saw a student struggling with - for example - a stylistic feature, and providing a definition referenced to wikipedia on which they based their answer: to me it showed that they were at least attempting to provide a basis for their interpretation, and is exactly what we tell them to do in exams: 'If you're not sure what the question's asking, provide your interpretation of it as the starting point for your answer'. Yes, it would have been better if they'd been able to reference the dictionary of literary terms I referred them to, but it's not their fault that the library wouldn't stock it in that fiscal period, or that funding cuts meant that opening hours were cut so that the times when it was open was when the student was working to make up for their lack of funding... but that's a whole different can of worms :-) But I can think of at least two reasons why wikipedia was acceptable in the context of the courses I taught. Firstly, the students were mostly using it for basic facts such as the definition of alliteration or (for students who took an historicist approach to literature) details about the life of an author or the cultural context in which s/he was working. I do think that wikipedia is sound on the fundamental facts of such topics, and like other people who have contributed to this thread I use it myself for learning the basic points of an issue before I go and follow up points of interest in more detail elsewhere. Secondly, because the nature of that subject is so focused on individual interpretation and the production of original analysis (and because the course teams were increasingly canny about minimising opportunities for plagiarism), there isn't any room for a student gaining many marks by simply regurgitating information from another source. In response to the original poster, whose field is, I appreciate, very different to mine: if one of my students handed in an essay with only references to the Encyclopedia Britannica I would be deeply unimpressed. I encouraged any of my students who attempted to use the internet to support their research. All three universities, particularly the distance learning uni, offered superb access to academic resources via Athens, but students were hugely reluctant to use them: I don't know whether that's because they lacked understanding of how to access them - which I doubt, given their levels of IT literacy - or because they were aware that they lacked the academic background to be able to discriminate between good and less good sources: I'm sure that every academic on this list will have seen material published with glowing peer reviews and through the best academic resources with which they have violently disagreed! I did encourage my students to restrict their searches in google to site:ac.uk, which at least imposes a vague attempt at quality control over what they accessed. If anyone has any statistics for the use of google scholar, particularly within the uk, i'd be really interested in hearing about it. Apologies for the overlong and banal post; it's my annual contribution so please feel seasonably towards me and don't flame me too much :-) rowin Dr Rowin Young eLearning Research Fellow University of Strathclyde ________________________________ From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Jeremy Hunsinger Sent: Mon 05/12/2005 19:16 To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia is not a reliableinformation source actually this is fairly easy to solve and is solved by all the current citing practices of online materials. when one cites online materials, one is always supposed to give date and if appropriate time of access in the citation. on wikipedia, you can then go to the history and find that particular version of the article, or if it has been moved to archive, you could request it. On Dec 5, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Tom Erickson wrote: > This has been a very interesting discussion. Nobody has mentioned > what seems to me to be the biggest problem in using Wikipedia as a > source: the fact that its articles are not stable. Since, obviously, > articles can and do change over time, simply citing an article would > seem insufficient, as the content may change. > > It is interesting that the Wikipedia's design does not make it easy > to do a citation that will continue to point at the version actually > used. If one clicks on the history tab (for "past versions of this > page"), one sees the history list and can copy those URLs. And in > fact, contrary to what the flyout text for the history tab suggests, > the history page also contains a URL for the current page, so in fact > one could cite the specific instance of the article with something > that would presumably act like a permalink. It seems to me that, for > courses where Wikipedia citations are permitted, that this might be a > good discipline to follow, as it foregrounds the issue of the > stability or lack thereof of knowledge. > > --Tom > -- > ------------------------------------------ > Tom Erickson > IBM T.J. Watson Research Center > Email: snowfall(a)acm.org (preferred); snowfall(a)us.ibm.com(IBM > confidential) > http://www.visi.com/~snowfall/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// > listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki _______________________________________________ The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia is not a reliable information source
by GTa3411203＠aol.com 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

I have found that Wikipedia entries are good starting points for conducting research on emerging trends. For example, I am currently writing a paper on the emerging trends to use mobile devices (PDAs, smartphones, tablet computers, MP3 players) and wireless networks to support learning in workplace and educational settings. I have found Wikipedia entries to be an invaluable resource in assisting me with pulling together the evolutionary processes associated with the emergence of the various mobile devices and associated practices. My approach in using this source of information in support of research is to triangulate available information to other sources, those that skeptics would consider as being reputable publications (newspapers, trade publications, academic journals, books). I also encourage students to use this same approach when considering using a Wikipedia entry as reliable source of information. I co-teach an on campus course where students do collaborative learning activities each week to construct knowledge about a given topic. At the completion of the activity, I ask students to report out to others, in a large group setting, key insights gained from the interaction. I might have them share information orally or in writing, using the blackboards or whiteboards in a room or easel-size Post-It notes and colored markers. This activity could easily turn into one where students could create new or build upon existing Wikipedia entries. I would use this approach in teaching this group of students but have limitations with regard to access to computer and Internet resources that are necessary to support the integration of this activity into a face-to-face classroom setting. I could modify the approach so tasks would be completed as t ake-home assignments but this goes against personal teaching values. I teach students from the constructivist perspective and place high value on students constructing knowledge in collaboration with others, with guidance from me as opposed to the other way around. -- Gail ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gail Taylor, M.Ed. Human Resource Education Ph.D. Student Educational Psychology Teaching Assistant University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia is not a reliable information source
by Bram Dov Abramson 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

On: >I have informed my students that they may no longer use Wikipedia as >a reference or source on papers in my courses. I urge you to consider >a similar statement. While Wikipedia may be a useful first step in >seeking information, I no longer accept it as a credible source. >Therefore, I advise students to look further when a project requires >a reliable source. And: >- Compounding the above point is the fact that Wikipedia's quality >assurance mechanism only works on a macro-level. We have little >information about whether individual articles have been properly vetted >by many users at a specific point. We end up deciding in general >whether we believe the mechanism works or not. I agree that a lot of the articles on Wikipedia are not great. As a reference tool, Wikipedia is interesting but not necessarily authoritative. Sure. Recently I've been discovering Wikipedia, and my thoughts had run in a different direction. Has anyone integrated Wikipedia into their courses, not as a source, but as a destination? Are there courses out there where students are being asked to *update* Wikipedia? (Wikipedia's quality assurance mechanism -- talking things out, seeking intervention, going to third party arbitrators -- assumes the possibility of rational resolution and is hard to understand besides. It needs a lot of work, particularly in having people produce concise guides making what's already there more readily understandable. Still, that doesn't mean it need be dismissed as a "brute force" approach! Something more is going on there, I think.) >- One common tool that people use to make decisions about information >quality is authorship. But in the name of promoting the >commons-authorship model, Wikipedia actually obscures the notion of the >author at an individual level. If you wanted to find out who wrote an >individual piece an article, there would be no reasonable way to do >that. It's true that wading into page histories can be time-consuming. But it's not *that* bad. Whether it is based on the other things they have written on Wikipedia or on their choice to stitch the Wikipedia identity to a real-world one, though, the reputation mechanism is still around -- though less foregrounded. If making the reputation mechanism more prominent would help Wikipedia, there are probably ways to do so within the existing structure. An individual could draft the article (or major changes to it), make the edit on Wikipedia, and leave a link on the Discussion page to the frozen version that that person had written -- allowing people to identify the author and consult it directly. The converse is true, too: the MediaWiki package makes it easy to gather links to all of one's edits on a single page. In fact, one could create an off-site list of "trusted authors" and the articles they had written, or edited, etc. Heck, I wonder what would happen if a group of academics decided to produce an encyclopedia and publish its results on Wikipedia -- and, simultaneously elsewhere, either online or in paper. The two sets of articles would gradually diverge. Third parties could decide which, if either, they wanted to consider authoritative. Sorry to natter on. I do understand that the original point was much smaller, ie to keep students thinking about the quality of their sources, and I agree with most of what's been said. Still, I can't help but think that Wikipedia is much more interesting as an opportunity. cheers Bram

2 1

Ang Peng Hwa on Internet Governance "Webjam"
by Randolph Kluver (Assoc Prof) 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

Ang Peng Hwa gave a keynote speech at the recent AoIR meeting in Chicago on Internet Governance. Those who found his speech helpful might be interested in watching the internet governance "debate" on at Open Source Media, in which Peng Hwa is participating. Peng Hwa has posted a response to the opening salvo of the debate by Claudia Rosette (http://osm.org/site/articles/20051130rosettinternet/) His response is posted at this webpage: http://osm.org/site/articles/20051204angpenghwa BLOGJAM: On Monday, December 5, at noon US Pacific time, join Professor Ang in a live online discussion, along with Perry De Havilland of Samizdata <http://www.samizdata.net/blog/> , Franklin Cudjoe <http://www.wingsoffreedomandjustice.blogspot.com/> of Imani Ghana <http://imanighana.org/> and new media guru Dan Gillmor <http://bayosphere.com/blog/dangillmor> . Moderated by US News & World Report's Michael Barone <http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/home.htm> . Randolph Kluver Executive Director Singapore Internet Research Centre Nanyang Technological University Singapore 637718 phone (65) 6790-5770 URL: www.ntu.edu.sg/sci/sirc/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia is not a reliable information source
by Ken Friedman 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

Quick response to comments and questions 1) Ulf-Dietrich Reips asks, "How many citations of Wikipedia entries have your students really handed in to you that were a) not backed up by another source, and, b) found to be inaccurate?" I did not keep count. I have noticed a significant increase in Wikipedia use over the past year, and I notice that students who DO use Wikipedia often use it as a single source. The inaccuracies I observe tend to be a difference between these students and those who draw on a wide range of sources. This is a simple way to push them in another direction. My focus is on using multiple sources regardless of how good any one source may be. Given the use of Wikipedia as a proxy for research, my simple counterbalance is a proxy measure for those who do not search more widely in the first place. 2) Judd Antin writes, "For my own part, I often find that Wikipedia is a valuable place to start exploration, especially in areas that I know little about. Wikipedia articles often provide me with the background and context I need to begin exploration. This, IMHO, is the type of use we should promote." Without disagreeing with or contesting Judd's other points, I want to say that Judd and I agree here. I don't tell students not to use Wikipedia at all. It is a good starting point for background information and leads. What I tell students them is that I no longer accept Wikipedia as a source. As Judd writes, Wikipedia macro-level principle works, but the micro-level is too often flawed. While tools like the History Flow are interesting for those who want to research an article, I'd rather have students check multiple sources than myself have to check each article -- and its provenance -- when I see a Wikipedia reference. I do not wish to be a fact checker for student research papers. 3) Peter Steinberger writes, "To be consequent you have to ban all other Internet sources too. And all the magazines that are peer reviewed too, because lately they made some major mistakes too." I don't see it this way. There are many good on-line sources, and I work with students teaching them how to explore, evaluate, and use multiple sources comparatively, including on-line sources. The issue here is the likelihood of major mistakes, and especially the unchecked occurrence of malicious hoaxes and fraud. You may defraud a scholarly journal, but you must do so by faking your evidence in a sophisticated way and getting it past the reviewers. All it takes to defraud Wikipedia and set fake facts loose is to log on and write -- or rewrite -- an entry. For the moment, I argue that prohibiting Wikipedia as a source will enhance the debate by increasing the pressure on Wikipedia to find a better correction mechanism. 4) Jill Walker writes, "Our department has recently instated a similar prohibition against using the Wikipedia as a source in student papers. Our line has been that the Wikipedia is one of many useful places to start doing research on a topic, but that it is rarely valid as a final source for research. Many articles do provide good overviews and more importantly, they often link to primary sources which CAN be good, citable resources in student papers." Thanks for this note. Again, I agree, and I find myself in agreement with the other issues she raises as well. One note: this is not a school policy. It is my own policy. I have proposed this at the department level, though, and I plan to take it up the line. 5) Ulf-Dietrich Reips correctly notes that I misspelled John Seigenthaler's name. Alas, I did so twice. And I just did it again before correcting myself. But my note was not the "source" on Seigenthaler, and the sources I gave had it right. Rather, this was an example. My note was a source of information on a situation and my action in response to the situation. -- Ken Friedman Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language Norwegian School of Management Design Research Center Denmark's Design School email: ken.friedman(a)bi.no

3 2

cfp to tweak your interest!
by Stephanie Jo Kent 04 Dec '05

04 Dec '05

Hi all, I want to encourage you to check out the info and cfp for the upcoming conference hosted by graduate students of the UMass-Amherst Communication Department. The following link will take you to my blog blurb and from there to the poster and cfp for Communication in Crisis, CFPs due January 6. http://www.stephaniejokent.com/blog/archives/001860.html I've been mostly a lurker on the list for the past few years and am impressed with the potential for interdisciplinarity. We're hoping for a broad turnout and a wide variety of presenters. Graduate students and faculty are invited to submit, solo or in panels. I hope you'll consider this seriously and please spread the word to anyone you think might be interested. thanks for your time and support, steph Stephanie Jo Kent, M.Ed, CI Doctoral Student, Communication, UMass-Amherst 1852 Sunset Lake Road Brattleboro, VT 05301-9310 kentcon(a)sover.net steph(a)comm.umass.edu http://www.reflexivity.us

1 0

teaching "sociology of the internet"
by Nik John 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

before knuckling down to prepare my quite general BA course on the sociology of the internet for 50 or so students, i thought it would be interesting to see how other people have done it. any good course sites out there from which to gain inspiration? any particularly successful online assignments to hear about? thanks nik ---------------------------------- Nicholas John, PhD Candidate Department of Sociology and Anthropology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2 1

New ranking study on e-participation in German cities
by Matthias Trenel 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

********************* Press Notice 02. Dec. 2005, 08:00 CET Source: http://www.zebralog.de/en/000136.html German cities improve, but still have a long way to go ********************* Today, the Initiative for eParticipation has released its second study on citizen participation over the internet. As last year, Berlin showed the best eParticipation record, Freiburg and Munich made a big step forward. The study analyzed the websites of all 83 German cities above a population of 100.000. A ranking system was applied that rewarded points if cities offered comprehensible and comprehensive information on current political issues, if political decision makers could be addressed through the web, and if citizens were invited for deliberation through discussion forums or chats. The usablity of such participatory projects as well as their integration into political decision making processes was of primary importance. Coder's agreement on their assessment of the cities' websites ranged between 88 and 100%. The results show that German cities have improved their eParticipation record compared to last year's study. However, the large majority of German cities still has not attempted to consult citizens over the internet. Berlin ranked highest because (among other reasons) the city provides a citizen discussion space on its main portal, carried out a couple of online dialogues on town planning issues and had a participatory budgeting project in one of its boroughs (Lichtenberg) where citizens could take part online as well. The study has been commissioned by the Initiative for eParticipation and financed by the following German eParticipation providers and research institutions: binary objects (Berlin), Ingenieurgesellschaft entera (Hannover), Fraunhofer E-Government-Zentrum und Fraunhofer Institut AIS (Sankt Augustin), politik-digital (Berlin), TuTech Innovation (Hamburg), wegewerk (Berlin), and Zebralog (Berlin). The Initiative eParticipation wants to encourage policy makers and adminstrators to make use of internet-based participatory methods when decisions with far reaching consequences for citizens are made. The Initiative is convinced that both technology and methods for eParticipation are ready for use, and so are citizens who are waiting for opportunities to engage. New thinking is needed among politicians so that eParticipation can be employed on a wider scale. The study is available for donwload in German at http://www.Initiative-eParticipation.de 2053 characters Further information can be obtained from: Matthias Trénel eMail: trenel(a)zebralog.de phone: +49 30 6951 8694 fax: +49 30 6162 3681 http://www.zebralog.de/en/000136.html

1 0

CFP: Exploring Gender, Feminism and Technology from a Communication Perspective
by Michele H Jackson 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Women's Studies in Communication invites submissions for a special issue on "Exploring Gender, Feminism and Technology from a Communication Perspective" to appear in September 2006. Across disciplines, studies of technology have been a rich source for understanding women's experience and for advancing feminist theory. The goal of this special issue is to emphasize the contribution of communication practice and/or theory in exploring this relationship. More specific themes within this general emphasis may include examination of women's uses of particular technologies, the gendered nature of technology, the effect of technologies (or technological culture and globalization) upon women's lives, and developing/critiquing feminist theories of technology. Any type of technology may be considered; although they are welcome, manuscripts need not be limited to communication and information technologies. Manuscripts may by theoretical, empirical, or descriptive. For empirical studies, we welcome the full range of methodologies. All manuscripts must be clearly labelled as submissions intended for this special issue and submitted following standard guidelines described at http://www.bk.psu.edu/faculty/ramsey/submissions.html. All submissions will be blind and peer reviewed. Informal enquiries are welcome and should be directed to WSIC Associate Editor Michele Jackson, jackson(a)colorado.edu . Submission deadline: February 1, 2006

1 0

Research Request: Philosophy of Design -- Full-text articles also welcome
by Ken Friedman 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Dear Colleagues, This is a research request for articles and books on philosophy of design. This revises an earlier call. I seek citations, references, and descriptions of articles and books in which philosophers discuss issues that can be applied to design process as well as articles and books in which designers and design researchers discuss or develop a philosophy of design. Propositions and heuristic probes are welcome, along with references to full-formed or comprehensive philosophies. IMPORTANT REVISION: Several authors have been kind enough to send full articles or conference papers. If you have articles or papers you are willing to share, I will welcome them and I will include them in the compilation. Please send contributions, suggestions, and comments to: <ken.friedman(a)bi.no> with the words Philosophy of Design in the Subject: header I will compile all contributions and post them to the list. I will also prepare the compilation as a small anthology in .PDF format. The anthology will include full-text articles for which permission to include has been granted. The author of each contribution will retain the copyright to his or her contribution. Thank you. -- Ken Friedman Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language Norwegian School of Management Design Research Center Denmark's Design School email: ken.friedman(a)bi.no

1 0