[Air-l] Trusted Wikipedia

[Heidelberg, Chris]

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 at listserv.aoir.org
[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tilden
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:03 PM
To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org; alex at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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/