I am what you would call a supporter of using Wikipedia for educational purposes. Or at least I used to be, my support for the largest encyclopedia (online or off) is beginning to waiver, but not because of the usual "academia" argument that articles are inaccurate or misleading. The source that erodes my support for this web community is the adult oriented content contained within its links.
First, I will argue mano y mano with anyone that derides Wikipedians for being inaccurate and "hooligans" (or something of the sort). There are a great many articles that give citations and links to the primary sources of information - something most regular encyclopedias do not do. I have even had the pleasure and honor to find inaccuracies between different "book" encyclopedias that could not agree on the specific date of some event.
A post over on Doug Johnson's Blue Skunk Blog sent me off on a very interesting investigative adventure of the darker side of Wikipedia. Perhaps I was a bit naïve in not recognizing that such a robust source of information was bound to contain articles on topics not normally discussed in polite society. Well, not only do they have them, but they have "art" on them. While some of the pages contain the usual textbook style diagrams they take it one step further and include actual photographs.
As a former biology teacher, I can appreciate what they are trying to do, but if I leave Wikipedia unfiltered in my school district, the potential for young children to find inappropriate (and sometimes pornographic) pictures on school computers increases when we are encouraging our students to use Wikipedia as a potential source of information. The answer to this might be the infamous "key word filter" found on many popular filtering devices today, but blocking biologically correct words for portions of human anatomy might block true educational sites that might just mention the word.
The only short term solution I can find right now is to block Wikipedia from student access. Our district policy is that teachers should be monitoring our students while online, but since I already know that this inappropriate content is there, if I do not make an attempt to restrict student access could I not end up in the same shoes as Julie Amero (<-- ironic isn't it?)? What about my district's teachers? Would they be held responsible as well?
A long term solution might be to get Wikipedia to put a disclaimer on adult content articles that could be recognized by a content filter to prevent student access to inappropriate content. The current discussion on Wikipedia is not lending itself in this direction, but they already have disclaimers and block edits on some pages because of other issues (vandalism mostly), so it won’t hurt to ask them.
Jeffrey Hastings said "Wikipedia, though, is a unique source at this point. I think we need to recognize
its inherent strengths and inherent weaknesses as well as assessing it's suitability to the students we serve. We should, I think, adapt to it and to try to fit it properly into the information landscape."
I agree with Jeffrey - it definitely unique in structure, depth, and content. But like the rest of the Internet, it has its fair share of pornography as well. This information definitely puts my school district in a quandary (and probably a lot of other districts as well, even if they do not realize it yet). What is your district doing?
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Brian,
You write, "The only short term solution I can find right now is to block Wikipedia from student access." I'd like to offer another solution that is both short term and very long term: monitoring and education.
Your solution really isn't a solution at all for a couple reasons. First, studies show filters are at best about 89% effective. Second, most students have more access to unfiltered computers than they do school computers (according to Pew, most children get their primary internet access at home, not at school.)
As educators, I have long felt we need to teach kids the difference between appropriate and non-appropritate sites and monitor their behaviors to make sure they understand and practice this discrimination.
This is not simple, neat or 100% effective either - oh and it creates work and requires responsibility of teachers. But to do less would be unprofessional.
By blocking sources of information that students actually use, we will continue to make school (and teachers) less relevant in kids lives. A tragedy.
Oh, I also wrote a column about Wikipedia a while ago if you are interested.
http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/wikipedia-ban-it-or-boost-it.html
Thanks for listening and all the best,
Doug
I can't say that I disagree with you Doug, but we have to look a bit beyond social responsibility. We must adhere to Federal law. If a school district does not follow the law, it could loose a lot of money, not just from the U.S. Department of Education but also from the numerous law suits that parents are bound to bring when they find out their child was exposed to pornography while at school. Does that mean we should be operating in climate of fear (from litigation)? Absolutely not. Education is the key to removing filtering software from schools.
I agree, the most effective method of "Internet filtering" is direct supervision by an adult. We cannot rely on a "stupid" computer filter to protect our children. So often though we give students an Internet-connected computer to use as a babysitter. One of the first things I noticed when I first started teaching was how QUIET computer labs were as compared to my active (often loud) classroom. Why were the labs quiet? Because when they finished their work they had free reign on the Internet. Wow - free reign. The number one time when students do what they are not supposed to be doing - free time. This is not limited to computers, I've seen physical fights break out in a classroom because of free time. Who is to blame? The students for the mischief or the teacher for not actively engaging students in learning?
Why do we have to filter? Because we have to change the way that teachers are using computers in the classroom. Until ALL teachers are responsible enough to monitor student activity and promote learning from "bell to bell" then filtering is not just the law, it’s a safety net. Safety net from what? Frivolous lawsuits that waste school district money that could be better used supporting teaching and learning instead of defending employees' lack of judgment.
Doug wrote: "Your solution really isn't a solution at all for a couple reasons. First, studies show filters are at best about 89% effective. Second, most students have more access to unfiltered computers than they do school computers (according to Pew, most children get their primary internet access at home, not at school.)"
We are talking about blocking wikipedia, not all the internet. 100% of filters can block wikipedia and answers.com and other mirrors of wikipedia content:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks
"By blocking sources of information that students actually use, we will continue to make school (and teachers) less relevant in kids lives. A tragedy."
I think it's a tragedy if schools are using encyclopedias beyond the 5th grade, period. Besides, once one kid vandalizes a page on wikipedia, his whole school district will be blocked by wikipedia admins anyway.
I tend to prefer Yahoo Answers over Wikipedia, although of course there is plenty of noise there as well. But you don't hear about school districts and whole countries being banned from asking a question on Yahoo Answers.
Post a Comment