Does it make you more or less likely to consult Wikipedia, or does it make no difference?
It was interesting to gain an insight into how Wikipedia is created and edited. The article confirms my suspicions about collaborative creation of resources/Web 2.0 in that only a very small number of editors actually do anything useful or significant. I wonder if this is the same 'elite' creating 'knowledge' in a different environment - on-line rather than in say a college or by writing an article for press.
The 'paintball' aspect of the editing process makes me very much more cautious about the quality of the content than I had been.
2. If you have used Wikipedia in the past few weeks - whether for H800 or for other reasons - review your use of it.
Where have you found it most and least valuable?
I have used Wikipedia to gain an overview of topics, noting broad themes and names for further research -perhaps via Google Scholar or the OU library. I have also used it to look up definitions of unfamiliar words or concepts.
3. Why is a Wikipedia entry not generally regarded as acceptable as a reference in an academic journal?
The principle problem would be the lack of peer review and the consequences of the 'paintball game' - Wikipedia is viewed as inherently potentially unreliable because of the potential for vandalisim and the lack of editorial control.
I advise my students to use it (if they must)for an introduction to a topic - but to take what it contains with a large shovelfull of salt and confirm everything elesewhere (and to use other sources once confirmed as references).
4. How does your use of Wikipedia compare with, say, your use of Google or GoogleScholar? You may like to think back to your tutor group discussion of the graph in Week 1a Activity 4.
I find Google Scholar and the literature search in the OU library produce better quality references and I use both more frequently.
Activity 1
1. 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?
It was interesting to gain an insight into how Wikipedia is created and edited. The article confirms my suspicions about collaborative creation of resources/Web 2.0 in that only a very small number of editors actually do anything useful or significant. I wonder if this is the same 'elite' creating 'knowledge' in a different environment - on-line rather than in say a college or by writing an article for press.
The 'paintball' aspect of the editing process makes me very much more cautious about the quality of the content than I had been.
2. If you have used Wikipedia in the past few weeks - whether for H800 or for other reasons - review your use of it.
Where have you found it most and least valuable?
I have used Wikipedia to gain an overview of topics, noting broad themes and names for further research -perhaps via Google Scholar or the OU library. I have also used it to look up definitions of unfamiliar words or concepts.
3. Why is a Wikipedia entry not generally regarded as acceptable as a reference in an academic journal?
The principle problem would be the lack of peer review and the consequences of the 'paintball game' - Wikipedia is viewed as inherently potentially unreliable because of the potential for vandalisim and the lack of editorial control.
I advise my students to use it (if they must)for an introduction to a topic - but to take what it contains with a large shovelfull of salt and confirm everything elesewhere (and to use other sources once confirmed as references).
4. How does your use of Wikipedia compare with, say, your use of Google or GoogleScholar? You may like to think back to your tutor group discussion of the graph in Week 1a Activity 4.
I find Google Scholar and the literature search in the OU library produce better quality references and I use both more frequently.