On 9/21/06, Mary K. Bryson <mary.bryson@ubc.ca> wrote:
"Recognition" is such a complicated construct. How to fashion a version of "recognition" that would make sense within the unique version of constraints that operate in Wikipedia would be a productive educational activity. It would be productive of something that would, in all likelihood, stage a return to some notion of "verifiable expertise". It's just so hard to avoid a return to the repressed. <snip>
Right, the same set of filters that are normally applied by librarians when judging the reliability of a source, and that guide where we tend to publish. As I suggested in the first email out, attaching this very traditional mark to the existing resource may have little to do with the actual content, but I think it would provide a way to link it to existing structures of knowledge, without any loss in its autonomy. In practice, students are being told by teachers all around the world that they shouldn't trust Wikipedia. That would be great, if they were also telling them not to trust anything else published. But this appears to be skepticism mis-focused. By bridging the divide between what are traditional technologies (techniques) of establishing authority and new forms of communal authority, I think we allow for more people to access and engage in collaborative knowledge building. My aim is practical. I worry that many who could benefit from Wikipedia, and who could benefit Wikipedia, are ignoring it because there is no bridge from traditional sources of knowledge authority to this new source. My hope is that such a resource would provide that bridge. - Alex -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //