I did and I also knew that the whole thing got out of hand. I personally do not believe in censorship, and I think that the publishing industry has traditionally engaged in censorship because of the costs associated with publishing. However, technology has changed everything and now anyone can publish. Credible information that is published can reap financial and professional rewards. I am not anti-publishing, I just want ordinary people to have a voice when they need one. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tilden Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:03 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; alex@halavais.net Subject: Re: [Air-l] Trusted Wikipedia Does everyone realize that this is what Cornwell was talking about and everyone flamed him. Sam Alex Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> wrote: On 9/21/06, Bonnie Nardi wrote:
I like the freedom writers have to write there without worrying about what an expert thinks. The funnel is narrowed when a small handful of experts begins to exert control and shape the writing.
Wikipedia is one source among many. It is what it is, and what it is is unique and has value.
I agree, and I wouldn't want to do something that would curtail that freedom. As a practical matter, though, Wikipedia continues to be assailed as a source, and the community reacts to that. I happen to think that most of the substantive articles on Wikipedia are already excellent. Again, all this does is provide a link back to something teachers and librarians are more familiar with. The Wikipedia Training Wheels Project would probably be a better label, but doesn't quite have the ring to it. As for whether students will use it anyway... I think Jennifer is right. Many teachers at the secondary and at the university level forbid the use of web sources, and Wikipedia in particular. Students may use it, but they won't value it. Is that misguided? Yes, at least in part. But can you blame students or teachers who have been inculcated with a particular idea of how to evaluate sources? Not really. I don't think this project impedes WIkipedia. That is one reason that I want it to occur (largely) outside the site itself. Were such an expert review integrated, I think it would interfere with the existing system. Wikipedia itself is a swiftly moving structure, and is pressing forward with its own mechanisms of control, but particularly expert review can survive nicely outside of Wikipedia proper. At worst, the project would be ignored. At best, again, it provides a bridge for those with traditional ideas of how knowledge is valued and produced, and gives them a frame through which they may be introduced to Wikipedia. I worry that without this, Wikipedia will continue to be marginalized. Despite phenomenal success, I think it would be best if it did not remain the *alternative* to existing scholarly resources. -- // // 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 // _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/ --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/