The Wikipedia Gap
One of my favourite blogs is authored by marketing guru Seth Godin.
One of his recent posts is about Wikipedia and it sort of resonates with some of the conversations we have at University about it.
I'll reproduce it here:
I wonder who the first teacher was who said to his class, "Okay, we have ball point pens now. No need to use class time to learn how to use a fountain pen."
I heard from two people this week (one is 11, the other twice that) who were forbidden to use Wikipedia to do homework.
When I was in b-school, I admit that I discovered a shortcut. I had to write a long paper on Castro. I went to the magnificent Stanford library, found a great book on Castro, opened to the bibliography and found ten sources. Which I then laboriously paged through, spending hours and hours in order to find the facts I needed.
Then, facts in hand, I was able to do the actually useful part... I synthesized some new ideas and wrote a paper.
Apparently, going through the act of finding the books, sorting through them, reading a lot of chaff and eventually finding the facts is an essential skill for an 11-year-old kid. And for a college sophomore. Essential enough to be responsible for 80% of the time they spend on the work itself?
Selecting the facts is an important part of the process. Finding them shouldn't be.
I don't know about you, but when I hire someone, or go to the doctor or the architect or an engineer, I could care less about how good they are at memorizing or looking up facts. I want them to be great at synthesizing ideas, the faster and more insightfully, the better.
Until just recently, law students had to learn a painstaking process to look up cases by hand. No longer. The academy realized that teaching students to be great at Lexis was a smart idea.
Please don't tell me that Wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia or one that can't be trusted. Perhaps it can't be trusted if you're prepping for a Presidential debate, but it is sure good enough to help me learn what I need to learn--which is how to quickly take a bunch of facts and turn them into a new and useful idea.
Here's what just about every exam ought to be: "Use Firefox to find the information you need to answer this question:" And as the internet gets smarter, the questions are going to have to get harder. Which is a good thing.
Until teachers get unstuck, our kids are going to be stuck and so will we.
Labels: Wikipedia
1 Comments:
In my humble opinions (IMHO), Wikipedia is as good as encyclopedia Britannica, if not better. I find this to be especially true since I am multilingual and can read up on the same search topics in different languages to gather different point of view (PoV) within different cultural or sub-cultural groups on the same subject. Wiki's history and discussion section is another area which provides more PoV, no matter how absurd. So IMHO as long as one have good common sense and sound judgment, one can form their own opinions not too far off the absolute fact or facts though Wiki; and for Britannica there also does exists misconceptions and PoV bias. I know this as I am a subject matter expert and specialist in many "useless" topics, topics that will get very little attention and very wrong or one-sided conclusions by Britannica.
And Wiki is definitely much more up to date then the yearly Britannica, not to mention the volume and depth of the information Wiki provides. IMHO to compare Wiki vs. Paper-based encyclopedia is like comparing Linux vs. Windows. You need more skill sets to master both of the former, but once you do, they can provide more timely response then the latter. (In Wiki's case, breakthrough or current events gets updated under one day. In Linux's case, virus and bugs gets patches or solutions under one day.) But there are commercial market niches for all of them.
Having said that, IMHO Wiki should be used just like any other encyclopedia in the Academia context, nothing more and nothing less. But I do believe the days of physical-based encyclopedia are numbered at any place with internet connections. But Libraries will probably need them, so will more then enough intellectuals with traditional habits and sophisticated people with spare cash and empty book cases to fill. (Do sophisticated people need expensive analog watches after the invention of mobile phones or even just cheaper digital watches? Wiki Swatch Group since it can’t be Britannicaed)
former BBIMer P.S.
(P.S. My intention is not to advertise Swatch, since I had never worked for them, and I loathe watches.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home