Duh!

To Use or Not to Use: Confessions of Guilty Education

"To err is human, to forgive divine..." blah blah blah... I am sure everyone is tired of the Wikipedia debate. I am also certain anyone reading this blog (may that be the case) has used Wiki articles now and then, if not for genuine research then for settling barroom bets.

I recall fondly the messy debates in library school over the big question. Students are using Wiki sources in papers and when they need a quick answer anything Google spits out is good enough for them.

It is still an important issue, putting aside that 10 page paper that is due tomorrow. How do we qualitatively consume information? The Internet has transformed what was once the province of English professors and dower looking librarians into the pulp fodder of Google and money lenders. Its pretty damn scary stuff for almost anyone teaching or in librarianship.

When I began my first term as a library student the doors were closed to Mr. Wales. However, by the time I was on my way out there was and still is a link to Wikipedia.org on the library's page.

It seems more like a game of attrition, at this point. If teachers and librarians can at least implant some critical skills in the average student then half the battle is won.

1. Wikipedia is a starting point in research. It is not a source list. I would make it a stop on the list of possibilities, but would press the user to consider in house print and subscription based peer reviewed sources as their primary focus.

2. What makes an authoritative source needs to be taught in schoolrooms as early as possible. Teach grade schoolers what is good and how to find it. At the very latest middle school kids should know which side of the bread is buttered. Librarians should be going into the classroom for English classes and teaching research skills.

3. Make information users smart consumers on the Internet. User instruction is ongoing. Certainly the Internet and the tools that bring it home change day to day. We are in the words of the time: in a "beta" mode continuously.

4. Admit there are good things about Wikipedia. First: its free. For people who do not have access to better quality information sources it is better than nothing. Second it does have good information on it on some topics. Although better control methods should be in place. I am sure most scholars would love to share their work for free. It is why they got in the game in the first place, to discover and educate in a democratic fashion. Copyright issues are important. We must not forget that taking with out acknowledging is called plagiarism.

Any thoughts?

Here is a link to the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7130325.stm