Many people dismiss Wikipedia out of hand as a trusted source, precisely because it is written and edited by "anybody." This differs, they suggest, from a newspaper, which is "fact checked," or from an academic paper, which is "peer reviewed." Over the last two years, I have chatted with a number of people about the possibility of peer reviewing Wikipedia "from the outside." At Wikimania, a number of proposals were made--some of which are already under way--to make Wikipedia both a more credible and a more accurate source of information. The two, while complementary, are not necessarily identical. What I would like to do is assemble an editorial board of recognized experts in Internet Studies, Computer-Mediated Communication, and Human-Computer Interaction who would go through the process of finding appropriate peer reviewers and certifying particular versions of Wikipedia articles as being peer-reviewed. This would provide the reader with an additional indication that the work is of high quality and accurate. To do this, we need to assemble a group of people who have some level of recognition in the field, and who are willing to devote a small amount of time to helping to select a core set of articles and oversee the review process. While we will be looking at a number of ways to make this process more technologically easy, the key issue here is to find a group of people willing to invest a little time and their reputations in an effort to make Wikipedia a more trusted source. If you are interested in chatting a bit more about the project, drop me a note. If you will be in Brisbane for the Internet Research, perhaps we can discuss the possibilities over lunch on Thursday. -- // // 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 //
Would the peer-reviewed versions be archived, allowing for further development of (including corrections to) the articles? Or would peer review freeze the content and preclude further development? The latter seems to be implied below, but is contrary to Wiki ways, which (laudably, arguably) regard all readers as potential peers. -eg
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Alex Halavais Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:46 PM To: aoir list Subject: [Air-l] Trusted Wikipedia
Many people dismiss Wikipedia out of hand as a trusted source, precisely because it is written and edited by "anybody." This differs, they suggest, from a newspaper, which is "fact checked," or from an academic paper, which is "peer reviewed." Over the last two years, I have chatted with a number of people about the possibility of peer reviewing Wikipedia "from the outside." At Wikimania, a number of proposals were made--some of which are already under way--to make Wikipedia both a more credible and a more accurate source of information. The two, while complementary, are not necessarily identical.
What I would like to do is assemble an editorial board of recognized experts in Internet Studies, Computer-Mediated Communication, and Human-Computer Interaction who would go through the process of finding appropriate peer reviewers and certifying particular versions of Wikipedia articles as being peer-reviewed. This would provide the reader with an additional indication that the work is of high quality and accurate.
To do this, we need to assemble a group of people who have some level of recognition in the field, and who are willing to devote a small amount of time to helping to select a core set of articles and oversee the review process. While we will be looking at a number of ways to make this process more technologically easy, the key issue here is to find a group of people willing to invest a little time and their reputations in an effort to make Wikipedia a more trusted source.
If you are interested in chatting a bit more about the project, drop me a note. If you will be in Brisbane for the Internet Research, perhaps we can discuss the possibilities over lunch on Thursday.
-- // // 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/
I guess you have heard of the recently launched Citizendium. See "New Citizendium to correct Wikipedia's wrongs?" at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060919-7775.html How does your idea relates to Citizendium? Citizendium is at http://citizendium.org/ The Citizendium Project The Citizendium (sit-ih-ZEN-dee-um), a "citizens' compendium of everything," will be an experimental new wiki project that combines public participation with gentle expert guidance. It will begin life as a "progressive fork" of Wikipedia. But we expect it to take on a life of its own and, perhaps, to become the flagship of a new set of responsibly-managed free knowledge projects. We will avoid calling it an "encyclopedia," because there will probably always be articles in the resource that have not been vouched for in any sense. We believe a fork is necessary, and justified, both to allow regular people a place to work under the direction of experts, and in which personal accountability--including the use of real names--is expected. In short, we want to create a responsible community and a good global citizen. P. On 9/21/06, Alex Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> wrote:
Many people dismiss Wikipedia out of hand as a trusted source, precisely because it is written and edited by "anybody." This differs, they suggest, from a newspaper, which is "fact checked," or from an academic paper, which is "peer reviewed." Over the last two years, I have chatted with a number of people about the possibility of peer reviewing Wikipedia "from the outside." At Wikimania, a number of proposals were made--some of which are already under way--to make Wikipedia both a more credible and a more accurate source of information. The two, while complementary, are not necessarily identical.
What I would like to do is assemble an editorial board of recognized experts in Internet Studies, Computer-Mediated Communication, and Human-Computer Interaction who would go through the process of finding appropriate peer reviewers and certifying particular versions of Wikipedia articles as being peer-reviewed. This would provide the reader with an additional indication that the work is of high quality and accurate.
To do this, we need to assemble a group of people who have some level of recognition in the field, and who are willing to devote a small amount of time to helping to select a core set of articles and oversee the review process. While we will be looking at a number of ways to make this process more technologically easy, the key issue here is to find a group of people willing to invest a little time and their reputations in an effort to make Wikipedia a more trusted source.
If you are interested in chatting a bit more about the project, drop me a note. If you will be in Brisbane for the Internet Research, perhaps we can discuss the possibilities over lunch on Thursday.
-- // // 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/
Hi For info. This article reports a challenge to a study which found Wikipedia as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm Sue -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/451 - Release Date: 19/09/2006
Hi, this my first mail since I join this mailing list. I'm often reading your intersting discussion and I have to say they are very interesting. About the idea of having "peer-reviewed" pieces of Wikipedia, I would like to make the suggestion of creating a kind of Logo, which could be added on those articles, e.g "this article has been reviewed by..." thanks for all -- Jeremy Depauw The Power of Knoweldge Sharing and Skills Synegism Journal de recherche: http://dev.ulb.ac.be/~jdepauw/dotclear/index.php
Yes, I have, and I support Larry Sanger's efforts generally, though I've been critical in the particulars in the past. Let a thousand flowers bloom. As I noted, there are also projects "from within" Wikipedia to provide a mechanism for fact-checking and indications by the community of confidence in particular articles. Here is where I think this project is different: * It's not a "fork" so much as a stable version: i.e., looking for mutualism, not parasitism. There are several efforts at making "stable" versions of Wikipedia, this is one of those, and one I think could be particularly successful. * One of the reasons I think it could be successful is that it is modest in scope. Nupedia and later attempts failed, I think, to gather a critical mass of well-known, "credentialed" academic folks in any one area. If we can do that here, within the more limited realm of Internet Studies / CMC / HCI, we would be far ahead of the game. I would venture to claim that a good number of the most well-known people in this area follow this list. * Another is that I am not hoping to create a heavy infrastructure. I want to apply existing "technologies" of peer review to the resource. Again, I am thinking the lighter the better. Any heavy editing would continue to occur on Wikipedia proper, but the certified versions would be kept segmented (with the appropriate links back to Wikipedia for current versions). I'm a small thinker! If this can work in the limited way suggested, it can serve as a model for others to do the same in their own fields. - Alex On 9/21/06, paolo massa <massa@itc.it> wrote:
I guess you have heard of the recently launched Citizendium. See "New Citizendium to correct Wikipedia's wrongs?" at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060919-7775.html
How does your idea relates to Citizendium?
<snip> -- // // 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 //
so perhaps something like the stswiki? only with a different scope, or is this going to be integrationist.... jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
On 9/21/06, Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
so perhaps something like the stswiki? only with a different scope, or is this going to be integrationist....
Similar only in that it is limited in scope. I am hoping for a resource that is much more closely tied to Wikipedia, in that it will not, itself, be a wiki. stswiki, at least the portions that are pulling from Wikipedia, is more of a fork, in that it hopes to tailor the articles to a particular audience. I am hoping we can certify static articles, while providing a link back to Wikipedia for the "dynamic" version of the same article. -- // // 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 //
Well, there are various reasons to fork from wikipedia, which i think sts wiki does. there is much more perspective about STS that can never be non-neutral in the wikipedia tradition, as is sts-centric. similarly if you try to fit some elements of knowledge into the wikipedia categories, you will run into strong resistance from other traditions... so to have a richer, more meaningful way for the arena of sts, i think a fork had to happen there. given the diversity of the topics that you specify, i'm not sure what will happen, but it is an interesting idea and i support it. On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Alex Halavais wrote:
On 9/21/06, Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
so perhaps something like the stswiki? only with a different scope, or is this going to be integrationist....
Similar only in that it is limited in scope. I am hoping for a resource that is much more closely tied to Wikipedia, in that it will not, itself, be a wiki. stswiki, at least the portions that are pulling from Wikipedia, is more of a fork, in that it hopes to tailor the articles to a particular audience. I am hoping we can certify static articles, while providing a link back to Wikipedia for the "dynamic" version of the same article.
-- // // 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 //
jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
On 9/20/06 7:45 PM, "Alex Halavais" <halavais@gmail.com> wrote:
To do this, we need to assemble a group of people who have some level of recognition in the field, and who are willing to devote a small amount of time to helping to select a core set of articles and oversee the review process. While we will be looking at a number of ways to make this process more technologically easy, the key issue here is to find a group of people willing to invest a little time and their reputations in an effort to make Wikipedia a more trusted source.
"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. What, exactly, is the problem with Wikipedia, anyway, really? And I mean "problem" from a scholarly perspective. Here we have an enactment of Hannah Arendt's observation that when there is genuine novelty it always appears rather miraculous, and we want to bring a novel artifact back into line with what it replaced, against all odds - something like - an academic journal? Why? Who doesn't trust Wikipedia, and who wants to trust its contents, and what is it to have a relation of "trust" with knowledge, anyway? What kind of knowledge is it that improves in its value because we stand before it in a relation of "trust"? The latter is probably easy enough to answer at the level of the everyday - as in -- "Well if I'm going in for open-heart surgery I want the person with the scalpel to know a little more than what you could find in a Wikipedia article." But outside of that realm of instrumental knowledge, literally, who is a "trusted source" and with what are they entrusted, and by whom? It's good to keep in mind what McLuhan observed about the contents of a new medium invariably being that of what it replaced... Maybe we can't help but experience anxiety that this odd site seems kind of like an encyclopedia, but is different. However, our relation to that anxiety can also be productive of the insight that we might not need to move to enact a strategy of repair. Mary --------------- Dr. Mary K. Bryson, Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Programs, ECPS, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia http://educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.html Research Profile http://www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca/research/mbryson.htm
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 //
Alex Halavais wrote:
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.
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to generate a statement of best practices that explains to students (and teachers) the difference between "relying" entirely on Wikipedia and using it appropriately in combination with more traditional research methods? Wikipedia stands in a dialogic relationship with "traditional sources of knowledge authority," and also with traditional forms of academic disciplinarity. Wouldn't teaching students to recognize those dialogues have greater educational value than creating yet another means for certifying static content according to disciplinary norms? Julie -- Julie E. Cohen Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 V 202-662-9871 F 202-662-9410 jec@law.georgetown.edu http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/jec/
Mary Bryson raises many important points. Why indeed are we trying to tame this miracle? We already have scads of academic journals. They aren't going away, they have enormous value, but they don't have to be the only game in town. On the let a thousand flowers bloom theory, Wikipedia is its own wonderful jungle/garden/wildspace. 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. In my experience, today's students are immersed in the Internet and they won't skip over Wikipedia just because a teacher tells them it's not reliable. The problem is more likely to be that they rely only on Wikipedia and don't dig deeper, even when Wikipedia tells them where to dig. Mary's points re McLuhan and Arendt are very well taken. -- Bonnie Bonnie A. Nardi School of Information and Computer Sciences University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3425 (949) 824-6534 www.artifex.org/~bonnie/ On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Mary K. Bryson wrote:
On 9/20/06 7:45 PM, "Alex Halavais" <halavais@gmail.com> wrote:
To do this, we need to assemble a group of people who have some level of recognition in the field, and who are willing to devote a small amount of time to helping to select a core set of articles and oversee the review process. While we will be looking at a number of ways to make this process more technologically easy, the key issue here is to find a group of people willing to invest a little time and their reputations in an effort to make Wikipedia a more trusted source.
"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. What, exactly, is the problem with Wikipedia, anyway, really? And I mean "problem" from a scholarly perspective. Here we have an enactment of Hannah Arendt's observation that when there is genuine novelty it always appears rather miraculous, and we want to bring a novel artifact back into line with what it replaced, against all odds - something like - an academic journal? Why? Who doesn't trust Wikipedia, and who wants to trust its contents, and what is it to have a relation of "trust" with knowledge, anyway? What kind of knowledge is it that improves in its value because we stand before it in a relation of "trust"? The latter is probably easy enough to answer at the level of the everyday - as in -- "Well if I'm going in for open-heart surgery I want the person with the scalpel to know a little more than what you could find in a Wikipedia article." But outside of that realm of instrumental knowledge, literally, who is a "trusted source" and with what are they entrusted, and by whom? It's good to keep in mind what McLuhan observed about the contents of a new medium invariably being that of what it replaced... Maybe we can't help but experience anxiety that this odd site seems kind of like an encyclopedia, but is different. However, our relation to that anxiety can also be productive of the insight that we might not need to move to enact a strategy of repair.
Mary --------------- Dr. Mary K. Bryson, Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Programs, ECPS, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia http://educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.html Research Profile http://www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca/research/mbryson.htm
_______________________________________________ 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/
I know we've discussed Wikipedia on the list before - especially as it pertains to use by students as a source in research papers. But, I just want to pick up on what Bonnie wrote, as it's been on my mind a lot lately:
In my experience, today's students are immersed in the Internet and they won't skip over Wikipedia just because a teacher tells them it's not reliable. The problem is more likely to be that they rely only on Wikipedia and don't dig deeper, even when Wikipedia tells them where to dig.
I'm teaching an Web literacy course this semester, and my students have become, well, brainwashed by other faculty that Wiki or really *any* source one gets off the Web is not to be trusted. Some students report that faculty tell them they may not use any Web-discovered or Web-published information in their papers. I find this attitude towards Web-based information resources deeply problematic, and am trying to break students of this "Web Info BAD" mentality. I am curious if others of you who are teaching students find this mentality in their students and where it seems to be coming from? I can't help but wonder if faculty just establish a "Thou Shalt Not Use Web Sources" in their assignments, rather than try to talk with students about determining the quality and crediblity of information they find online or offline [besides, why should we think that information we find in other media is somehow more credible . . . .] Best, ~Jenny
I'm teaching an Web literacy course this semester, and my students have become, well, brainwashed by other faculty that Wiki or really *any* source one gets off the Web is not to be trusted. Some students report that faculty tell them they may not use any Web-discovered or Web- published information in their papers.
[MS] As one outside of academia and immersed in business I find this debate fascinating. There are many implications both to the way we publish and the way we consume information, and more importantly what is taught at a tertiary level, and how this is done. Perhaps it makes sense to start at the actual purpose of a university education? Not all graduates will stay in academia. Most will end up in business. So, what do I (as a business person) expect from a graduate that I hire? I want them to be smart enough to know the difference between credible information and problematic material. The best way of achieving that is surely to have them exposed to both and develop their critical thinking abilities. So, restricting access (or dis-encouraging it) to the web as a reference point is not useful. Guaranteed the second they hit the workplace, any research that they do will be done online. Secondly, some of the books and journals out there are simply not worth the paper that they are printed on. Why should the medium create instant legitimacy? But I have no doubt that I am preaching to the converted here. The point is how to change perceptions in the rest of your faculties. Michele
The publishing/media industry has been a traditional partner with academia. As a member of the media on the public side now, and formerly on the corporate side exclusively, I know that the publishers have had a monopoly and amassed large fortunes due to academic publishing. Universities can now be full fledged publishers with online publishing and contain the costs and reap some of the profits. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Bonnie Nardi Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:00 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Trusted Wikipedia Mary Bryson raises many important points. Why indeed are we trying to tame this miracle? We already have scads of academic journals. They aren't going away, they have enormous value, but they don't have to be the only game in town. On the let a thousand flowers bloom theory, Wikipedia is its own wonderful jungle/garden/wildspace. 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. In my experience, today's students are immersed in the Internet and they won't skip over Wikipedia just because a teacher tells them it's not reliable. The problem is more likely to be that they rely only on Wikipedia and don't dig deeper, even when Wikipedia tells them where to dig. Mary's points re McLuhan and Arendt are very well taken. -- Bonnie Bonnie A. Nardi School of Information and Computer Sciences University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3425 (949) 824-6534 www.artifex.org/~bonnie/ On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Mary K. Bryson wrote:
On 9/20/06 7:45 PM, "Alex Halavais" <halavais@gmail.com> wrote:
To do this, we need to assemble a group of people who have some level
of recognition in the field, and who are willing to devote a small amount of time to helping to select a core set of articles and oversee the review process. While we will be looking at a number of ways to make this process more technologically easy, the key issue here is to find a group of people willing to invest a little time and
their reputations in an effort to make Wikipedia a more trusted source.
"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. What, exactly, is the problem with
Wikipedia, anyway, really? And I mean "problem" from a scholarly perspective. Here we have an enactment of Hannah Arendt's observation that when there is genuine novelty it always appears rather miraculous, and we want to bring a novel artifact back into line with what it replaced, against all odds - something like - an academic journal? Why? Who doesn't trust Wikipedia, and who wants to trust its contents, and what is it to have a relation of "trust" with knowledge, anyway? What kind of knowledge is it that improves in its value because we stand before it in a relation of "trust"? The latter is probably easy enough to answer at the level of the everyday - as in
-- "Well if I'm going in for open-heart surgery I want the person with
the scalpel to know a little more than what you could find in a Wikipedia article." But outside of that realm of instrumental knowledge, literally, who is a "trusted source" and with what are they entrusted, and by whom? It's good to keep in mind what McLuhan observed about the contents of a new medium invariably being that of what it replaced... Maybe we can't help but experience anxiety that this odd site seems kind of like an encyclopedia, but is different. However, our relation to that anxiety can also be productive of the insight that we might not need to move to enact a strategy of repair.
Mary --------------- Dr. Mary K. Bryson, Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Programs, ECPS, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia http://educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.html Research Profile http://www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca/research/mbryson.htm
_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
On 9/21/06, Bonnie Nardi <nardi@ics.uci.edu> wrote: <snip>
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. <snip>
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 //
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
On Thu, September 21, 2006 13:03, Sam Tilden wrote:
Does everyone realize that this is what Cornwell was talking about and everyone flamed him.
That's funny -- I was just thinking how nice it was to see the list being used for an interesting and civil discussion about topics related to internet culture, as opposed to near-obsessive metadiscussion of the list itself, spiced with subtle condescension toward its membership. I'm not trying to restart any arguments here -- just noting that tone matters as much as topic choice, and lately it's been nice around here. Regards, -- Bob Rehak Visiting Assistant Professor Film and Media Studies Swarthmore College
The method (tactics) surely depends on the need (objectives) of the initiative. Why is it needed? Two separate but linked reasons: 1. To improve the content 2. To change perceptions that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a source of information The assumptions 1. Some people are better at assessing and presenting information than others. 2. These people are likely to be academics rather than area experts from commerce. Potential problems 1. What makes Wikipedia accessible (digestible) is the tone of voice of the current material. Will a peer preview process change the style of writing? 2. Turn around time. How long will it take? 3. Consensus on the 'truth'. Yeah, right. Like that exists. My suspicion is that it is more effective to fix Wikipedia from the inside through introducing a tagging system where content chunks are marked as opinion or verified and referenced 'facts'. Perhaps this merely becomes a function of the number of editorial reviews (revisions) that the article has been through. Additionally, a clear link to the author of the text will ensure accountability for what is written. Personally, I do not know what I would do without Wikipedia, but often turn straight to the external links, as a trusted and endorsed source of additional information. Hmmm, wonder how long it will take before Wikipedia start to sell those links and undermine the whole idea of credible and impartial referencing. Michele
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/
Hi there!
To do this, we need to assemble a group of people who have some level of recognition in the field, and who are willing to devote a small amount of time to helping to select a core set of articles and oversee the review process. While we will be looking at a number of ways to make this process more technologically easy, the key issue here is to find a group of people willing to invest a little time and their reputations in an effort to make Wikipedia a more trusted source.
What I do not get is - why not set up an AIR-L wiki, consisting of the present articles in Wikipedia concerning the matters of AIR-L and then "revisioning it"? Or is that your suggestion? Better yet - set up a really international Wiki on the theme "communication in the 21st century" in English... If you really mean Wikipedia itself: Of course - it would be nice, if Wikipedia had an additional filter for expert-revewing in general or in special areas - I really thought of the same last weekend (I actually started to draw a system) - but who would decide, who is an expert? What levels would be needed? Of course - there are scientists like yourself dealing with it - but then there are business people, who are more actively shaping it (the Internet/technology/communication habits) - and people using and therefore deciding what is acceptable...how would you rate those different approaches? How should they incuberate into one or more ratings? Whose votes should count to which weithing? Especially in the field of IS, CMC and HCI I would assume, that there is no such thing as an "absolute" or "time-free" truth (meaning that every month/year, the Internet, its technology and the way of useage and therefore the way and meaning of the communication inside it changes/develops and therefore no fixed schemes of communication-processes/communication itself are real/absolute)... => what would an expert's rating be worth 1/12/24 months after? On the other hand - I really do appreciate the idea - it would be interesting to follow the process of change in how the scientific community reviews certain aspects of the Internet or the communication processes involved => you would need a versioning, though. Maybe I am not understanding it correctly and/or my English is limited in terms of a scientific approach... I really find it interesting though - as far as I can comprehend ;) BTW: Germanys Britannica - "Brockhaus" has released one of its encyclopida (meyers lexikon) online - based on a Wiki-System without allowing users to change articles, only allowing comments...but not linking through the different informations yet...at least not fully... Here at least I would appreciate the usage of the former truths ("versioning")...I viewed parts of a "Meyers Lexikon" of the twenties recently and it was fascinating, how terms and themes have changed in the way they are portraied - terms like "race" or "peoples" were actually fascinating when compared to our mainstream apporaches today... ( and no - this is no politcal statement! )
If you are interested in chatting a bit more about the project, drop me a note. If you will be in Brisbane for the Internet Research, perhaps we can discuss the possibilities over lunch on Thursday.
How I wish, Brisbane was round the corner ;) Please keep me/us in the loop... sam
participants (15)
-
Alex Halavais -
Bob Rehak -
Bonnie Nardi -
Ellis Godard -
Heidelberg, Chris -
Jennifer Stromer-Galley -
Jeremy Depauw -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Julie Cohen -
Mary K. Bryson -
Michele Sohn -
paolo massa -
Sam Liban -
Sam Tilden -
Sue Cranmer