User:Zzeeah/sandbox

Prior to this class I had a vague understanding of Wikipedia and rarely used it due to the fact that I assumed the information wasn’t credible and most teachers banned using it. With the advancement of technology, we’re finding ourselves caught between two worlds. While Wikipedia on one hand is our fastest resource for free information, it has proven faulty with trustworthy materials. As a student it’s convenient to have access to materials at your fingertips and I believe there’s a way we can utilize Wikipedia as a learning tool. Working and going to school full time consumes most of my day, add in homework on top of that and you start to get a picture of the dilemma facing most college students today. Education is becoming increasingly expensive making it almost impossible to afford books and resources needed to be a successful student. Using Wikipedia as a quick tool in accessing more in-depth articles gives me the opportunity to spend more of my time interpreting information instead of wasting hours scouring the vast internet. I was recently writing a paper on Spike Lee and looking for articles on his film “25th Hour’. One of the actors in the film just passed away so the search engine pulled up articles pertaining to the actor of the film first, which made it nearly impossible for me to navigate through the pages of links. Instead of wasting time scrolling through this list of links I went directly to Wikipedia and looked up Spike Lee and from there I was able to navigate away to useful articles on the subject matter I was looking for. If used properly Wikipedia can be a helpful tool in finding credible resources. Though that’s not to say there are some draw backs to it. On the other side of the debate anyone can distribute misinformation to further confuse unsuspecting victims and I have fallen for a few Wiki mishaps myself. When the internet was in shambles over the Morgan Freeman death hoax, I have to admit that I was one of the first people calling my dad giving him the sad news. Despite some of the shortcomings, with user driven content we have the ability to have experts contribute creditable material that can help our pool of knowledge. Information should be affordable and accessible to all, and Wikipedia can be used as a powerful tool in bridging that gap.

While I think that Wikipedia should not be used as a main source due to the fact that anyone can edit the information and there have been a few instances of widespread misinformation, such as what Jon Brodkin states in the article “The 10 biggest hoaxes in Wikipedia’s first 10 years”. “In this case, Wikipedia falsely reported the death of the 50-year-old Sinbad, who even received a telephone call from his daughter and calls, texts and e-mails from hundreds of others after the hoax spread. The Sinbad Wikipedia page was temporarily protected from editing to prevent further vandalism.” I do see the merits in having an information platform that’s accessible to all and that statement proves my point of how powerful of a tool Wikipedia is; Sinbad’s own daughter had to contact the source to confirm the information. When I search online for information on a particular subject the first website that pops up is Wikipedia. I’m able to get the basic concept of what I’m looking for as well as using it as a starting off point to more credible sources through sited links. Instead of deeming the concept of an online user made encyclopedia as a scoundrel act, why not treat this issue as a learning experience for students on how to use online resources to find reliable materials. Robert E. Cummings raises a valid point in his article “Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing?” He explains how students in this age of technology are going to use the tools that are accessible to them and that we are doing a disservice to the learning community for not recognizing this notion. “…but Jim's reaction is akin to decrying the advent of the telephone. Clearly, students shouldn't use telephones, since inaccurate information could be passed on them. We'll just ban the use of telephones in gathering information for our courses, penalize our students for using them, and later wonder why they seem under-prepared to succeed in a world dependent on the use of telephones.” Cummings sarcastic analogy echoes my sediments on how impractical it is to battle a source that has the possibility of giving misinformation, because regardless of where we get information it’s inevitable that we encounter misinformation. We should focus more on teaching students how to seek out the truth and utilize the technologies of our times. Cummings also touches on the idea that the educational community can change the face of Wikipedia through their own contributions of content which is the basic concept of the website. “Mark A. Wilson penned “Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia,” an article which understood Wikipedia as an online intellectual exchange. Acknowledging Wikipedia's challenges with verifying the accuracy and relevance of contributions, Wilson encouraged scholars to join Wikipedia's online intellectual community to broaden and sharpen its discourse.” Prior to taking this class, I hadn’t discovered the possibilities of communal information sharing. I assumed the worst scenario, with hackers deleting entries or purposely sabotaging pages. Instead, my eyes have opened up to the notion that we can band together and create a database full of knowledge available to all.

Source based content that we can obtain through books and articles; it’s often times more difficult to access these resources as students because of financial burdens. I work so I can afford to pay for school, which in turn means I will most likely make more money because I have a degree. There shouldn’t be a price tag on information, and everyone should have equal access. In Elizabeth Buie’s article “Wikipedia is good for pupils and teachers” Ollie Bray points out Economic factors play a role in education, he says: “Why is it fair that children in East Lothian can get access to hundreds of hours on Channel 4, National Geographic or the Scottish Parliament, when other schools and teachers have not got access to these resources?” The community Wikipedia creates is intended to provide equal access to information allowing anyone at any time free knowledge, giving the disadvantaged a platform for more opportunities to level the playing field.

Another article that shed light on the idea that some are more privileged to obtain knowledge then others was in “A Rorschach Cheat Sheet on Wikipedia?” A representative from the publishing company that had previously released Rorschach’s book pleads foul in making The Rorschach test available to the public. Even though you can distribute the information for free since the company lost their copyrights years ago. “They are pitted against the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s users, who share the site’s “free culture” ethos, which opposes the suppression of information that it is legal to publish. (Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States.)” There’s a double standard for sharing information when you can make a profit for what you’re giving versus the “free culture” Wikipedia embodies and the following quote serves as a representation of that opinion. “… Western Psychological Services sells the plates themselves for $110 and a larger kit for $185. Dr. Heilman, the man who originally posted the material, compared removing the plates to the Chinese government’s attempt to control information about the Tiananmen massacre. That is, it is mainly a dispute about control, he said.” This illustrates how unfair of an information system we have setup; if we pay for knowledge then we are privy to having it. I’m on Wikipedia’s side for providing an open platform of knowledge that we can all have access to use, share and benefit from.

The debate on Wikipedia breeds more questions on the complex issue of free information in a world where we can access materials from across the planet at a click of a button. Teachers should focus their efforts not on keeping Wikipedia out of schools but instead on providing creditable content for everyone to access by contributing to the website. The benefit of having free and accessible information outweighs the drawbacks of the occasional flawed content. I hope that we can advance our views on how we utilize technology in education and continue to add to the world’s ever growing knowledge pool.

Work Cites Brodkin, Jon “The 10 biggest Hoaxes in Wikipedia’s first 10 years'” Buie, Elizabeth “Wikipedia is good for pupils and teachers.” Cohen, Noam “A Rorschach Cheat Sheet on Wikipedia?” Cummings, Robert E. “Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing?” Jaschik, Scott “A Stand Against Wikipedia”