LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  April 2008

TSE April 2008

Subject:

Re: [radcaucus] Re: wikipedia]

From:

Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Wed, 2 Apr 2008 00:16:33 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (175 lines)

It is amusing when one gives a quiz on Jungian terminology. he meaning for
animus is frequently
given a hatred or negative feeling.
P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:08 PM
Subject: [Fwd: [radcaucus] Re: wikipedia]


>           I believe we have discussed Wikipedia on this list
>           before. The following might be of interest to some.
>
>           Carrol
>
>           -------- Original Message --------
>           Subject: [radcaucus] Re: wikipedia
>           Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
>           From: Steven Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
>           Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>           To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>           When I teach, I often look up stuff on wikipedia
>           because I assume my students are looking stuff up
>           there too. And sometimes, students will write papers
>           that seem to rely on wikipedia's explanation of
>           Derrida (or whatever I am teaching) rather than the
>           Derrida that I actually assigned them to read, but
>           more often, they use wikipedia to help them read
>           what I assigned, and this seems like a perfectly
>           good way to use it. And over the past couple years,
>           I've found that the explanations of literary terms
>           (e.g., metaphor, etc.) and theoretical terms (e.g.,
>           the gaze) in Wikipedia to be superior to the
>           explanations I've seen in textbooks and traditional
>           encyclopedias. So, in my view, wikipedia kinda
>           rocks.
>
>           Obviously, sometimes we can't trust the information
>           in Wikipedia and sometimes the entries are just
>           weak, but everyone knows that -- our students
>           already know that. In contrast, we are expected to
>           trust the information in the Washington Post, New
>           York Times, and The Chronicle of Higher Education,
>           and our students often cite what they see there as
>           "fact." Personally, I am probably more suspicious of
>           these newspapers than I am of wikipedia. What makes
>           Wikipedia superior to the Washington Post and the
>           New York Times is that Wikipedia either cites its
>           sources (even providing very useful links) or tells
>           you in bold letters that no sources are being cited,
>           thus alerting students to the importance of
>           citation. For instance, has anyone seen Bill Moyer's
>           show on "selling the Iraq war"? A classic case of
>           lots of claims about Iraq in the newspapers with no
>           real sources of information.
>
>           In teaching, I think it's a mistake to tell students
>           not to cite or use wikipedia. They will use it
>           anyway. Rather, we should be teaching them the right
>           way to use it.
>
>           best, Steve
>
>           HOWARD HASTINGS <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>           I am surprised to find myself defending Wikipedia,
>           but here goes:
>
>           One feature I like about this collectively produced,
>           online encyclopedia is that disputed articles are
>           generally tagged as such, with links to opposing
>           views on disputed matter, thus giving students some
>           sense of how knowledge isn't simply "given" but
>           "produced," often under very politicized conditions.
>           (E.g., check the article on Copernucs for the
>           current dispute over his nationality.)  One can't
>           get a good sense of this from textbooks, which can't
>           be revised online the way some Wikipedia articles
>           are, and so often appear to students as Truth
>           dropped from heaven and fixed for all time.
>
>           When it comes to less contested knowledge, such as,
>           for example, summaries or reviews of classical
>           myths. I don't see why Wikipedia isn't as good as
>           most other introductory sources.  It is more like a
>           library in which one has to sift and sort through
>           sources as one does in a "real" library or a
>           collection of archives, with the reliability and the
>           value of the matter one finds judged with reference
>           to the project at hand. So treating Wikipedia like a
>           unitary production under focused editorial control,
>           and then rejecting it wholesale as automatically bad
>           or untrustworthy when "errors" appear in entries on
>           current political candidates doesn't strike me as an
>           especially scholarly and critical valuation of this
>           resource.
>
>           Howard Hastings
>
>           [log in to unmask] schrieb:
>
>
>           Grover, you asked what's wrong with Wikipedia.
>           Here's an answer, from the Media Notes section of
>           today's Washington Post:<?xml:namespace prefix = o
>           ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>           My confidence in Wikipedia has diminished somewhat,
>           to put it mildly, after reading this Eve Fairbanks
>           dispatch in the New Republic: "There was the day in
>           February when an editor replaced a photo of Hillary
>           on her Wikipedia page with a picture of a walrus.
>           Then there was the day this month when a Hillary
>           supporter changed Obama's bio so that it referred to
>           him as 'a Kenyan-American politician.' But such
>           sweepingly hostile edits are usually fixed quickly
>           by other Wikipedia users. Often, it's the most
>           arcane distinctions on the candidates' pages that
>           provoke the bitterest tugs-of-war. "Recently, an
>           angry battle broke out on Hillary's page over
>           whether to describe Clinton as 'a leading candidate
>           for the Democratic nomination' or just 'a
>           candidate,' since each phrase implies a different
>           shade of judgment on her chances. Five minutes after
>           an Obama supporter deleted 'leading' just after 11
>           p.m. on March 8, another editor put it back. Seven
>           minutes after that, the word was deleted again. Some
>           thirty minutes after that, it was put back . . . At
>           around six in the morning, completing the atmosphere
>           of pandemonium, somebody replaced Hillary's whole
>           page with 'It has been reported that Hillary Rodham
>           Clinton has contracted genital herpes due to sexual
>           intercourse with an orangutan.' "
>
>           Not the kind of source I look to for accuracy.
>
>           Ted Steinberg
>
>
>           Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy..
>           http://www.boogaface.blogspot.com/
>
>           Ye Flippering Soule, Why dost between the Nippers
>           dwell? --Edward Taylor
>
>
>           You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one
>           month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost
>           --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>
>           You received this message because you are subscribed
>           to the Google Groups "Radical Caucus of the MLA"
>           group. To post to this group, send email to
>           [log in to unmask] To unsubscribe from this
>           group, send email to
>           [log in to unmask] For more
>           options, visit this group at
>           http://groups.google.com/group/radcaucus?hl=en
>           -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>           This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available
>           for free from
>           http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.2/1353 - Release Date: 3/31/2008
6:21 PM
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager