Is there anything new for you in the article? Does it make you more or less likely to consult Wikipedia, or does it make no difference?
I am a great believer in Open Learning and Collective Intelligence but this has battled with the historical comment in education of not accepting Wikipedia as a suitable source of reference. However, my view of this changed when studying H817 (Innovation in Learning), where there was acceptance that it had a place of a wealth of knowledge and that the skills in being able to identify what is accurate data and what is inaccurate is an important skills we need in life-long learning where information is in abundance. Would I use Wikipedia more – absolutely yes – I would like to contribute someway and being part of a large community.
If you have used Wikipedia in the past few weeks – whether for H800 or for other reasons – where have you found it most and least valuable?
I don’t tend to use Wikipedia in isolation. I find it useful to identify and research some unusual information but I like to then compare with other sources. I think this ‘matching’ process can help the reliability of information. I recognise that I need to engage more with Wikipedia, as its principle and heart of contribution from experts and interested parties/novices to build knowledge is something I really like and believe in.
Why is a Wikipedia entry not generally regarded as acceptable as a reference in an academic journal?
The article mentions how there are deliberate trolling taking place and that considering the number of articles and size of the resource there are relatively few standing guard and protecting articles of interest or worth. There is game submerged in the structure of the resources where teams battle to protect and destroy content – not therefore the most reliable source to gain research notes for academic purposes. However, and as detailed in my answer to question 1, I do feel there is a place for Wikipedia as a part of the research as it such a rich collaborative source, evolved with multiple motivations and approaches. It seems too rich to ignore and can offer some really interesting debate.
Thinking about Wikipedia
Is there anything new for you in the article? Does it make you more or less likely to consult Wikipedia, or does it make no difference?
I am a great believer in Open Learning and Collective Intelligence but this has battled with the historical comment in education of not accepting Wikipedia as a suitable source of reference. However, my view of this changed when studying H817 (Innovation in Learning), where there was acceptance that it had a place of a wealth of knowledge and that the skills in being able to identify what is accurate data and what is inaccurate is an important skills we need in life-long learning where information is in abundance. Would I use Wikipedia more – absolutely yes – I would like to contribute someway and being part of a large community.
I don’t tend to use Wikipedia in isolation. I find it useful to identify and research some unusual information but I like to then compare with other sources. I think this ‘matching’ process can help the reliability of information. I recognise that I need to engage more with Wikipedia, as its principle and heart of contribution from experts and interested parties/novices to build knowledge is something I really like and believe in.
The article mentions how there are deliberate trolling taking place and that considering the number of articles and size of the resource there are relatively few standing guard and protecting articles of interest or worth. There is game submerged in the structure of the resources where teams battle to protect and destroy content – not therefore the most reliable source to gain research notes for academic purposes. However, and as detailed in my answer to question 1, I do feel there is a place for Wikipedia as a part of the research as it such a rich collaborative source, evolved with multiple motivations and approaches. It seems too rich to ignore and can offer some really interesting debate.