Carrol, I use Wikepedia to find links to a subject I'm researching. For example, I was trying to find online copies of John Selden's book Mare Clausum, and a google search was so clogged with irrelevant references to Selden that it was onerous to wade through. Wikipedia gave me the links I wanted. Diana
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:08:40 -0500 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [Fwd: [radcaucus] Re: wikipedia] > To: [log in to unmask] > > 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
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get started!