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
Friday, June 8, 2007
My take on filtering...
So often I read posts about content filtering in schools and the ensuing discussion usually revolves around whether or not we should be filtering the Internet in schools. According to Federal law, in the form of the Children's Internet Protection Act (citation), schools and libraries that received E-rate funds are required to filter the content of the Internet when accessed by minors. So since the majority of us must filter our Internet connections, what is the best method(s) for doing so?
I recently switched content filters in my school district and through out the search for and implementation of our new content filter several points kept coming to mind:
1. The content filter should be managed by someone from a curriculum background. So often school districts make the mistake of placing decisions about which web sites are appropriate for education with someone that has never spent a day in a classroom directly involved in teaching and learning. While information technology personnel may have to be involved in the set-up of the filter, that does not mean they should be the "Net Nazi" (likened to Seinfeld's Soup Nazi character, "No Soup for You").
2. Ultimately, the building level principals should determine what web sites are appropriate for their teachers to be utilizing. The principals should have the advice and expertise of the content filter manager (remember, this person also has a teaching and learning background). I have found that administrators will seek to block anything that they do not directly understand. Often the content filter manager can provide insight and assurance to the principal so that a proper decision can be made.
3. Filtering profiles should be available to allow certain users more freedom online than others. Why? While student must be blocked according to Federal law, teachers and other adults doing "bon a fide" research are not restricted to the same level of content filtering. One possible set-up is to block adults to a certain level, giving them access to a specific category (e.g. blogs) while students are blocked from the same category, but individual educational blogs are permitted. A problem with this is that sometimes teachers allow students to use their computers while they are still logged in. In this case, teachers must be educated about Federal law and their Acceptable Use Policy should reflect that they are bound to uphold district policy.
4. Adults should be able to override the filter for specific categories. This particular feature has the biggest potential for abuse. I envision a teacher running from student computer to student computer entering in override credentials, or worse - writing the credentials on the board. I firmly believe that while not all teachers act like professionals, they should still be treated as such. The override accounts should be monitored (by that content filter manager) and inconsistencies should be given to building level administrators. Why override the filter? Youtube.com is a great example of a potential source of educational information - but unrestricted access is probably not a good idea (since its so addicting and some content is not necessarily educationally appropriate). When a government class is discussing a recent national or state election, Youtube.com is a great source of political ads. A teacher ought to have the ability to get that educational material without having to go through a bunch of hoops. Unfortunately, since some teachers cannot seem to control themselves, they will have to be notified that they are being monitored.
I recently switched content filters in my school district and through out the search for and implementation of our new content filter several points kept coming to mind:
1. The content filter should be managed by someone from a curriculum background. So often school districts make the mistake of placing decisions about which web sites are appropriate for education with someone that has never spent a day in a classroom directly involved in teaching and learning. While information technology personnel may have to be involved in the set-up of the filter, that does not mean they should be the "Net Nazi" (likened to Seinfeld's Soup Nazi character, "No Soup for You").
2. Ultimately, the building level principals should determine what web sites are appropriate for their teachers to be utilizing. The principals should have the advice and expertise of the content filter manager (remember, this person also has a teaching and learning background). I have found that administrators will seek to block anything that they do not directly understand. Often the content filter manager can provide insight and assurance to the principal so that a proper decision can be made.
3. Filtering profiles should be available to allow certain users more freedom online than others. Why? While student must be blocked according to Federal law, teachers and other adults doing "bon a fide" research are not restricted to the same level of content filtering. One possible set-up is to block adults to a certain level, giving them access to a specific category (e.g. blogs) while students are blocked from the same category, but individual educational blogs are permitted. A problem with this is that sometimes teachers allow students to use their computers while they are still logged in. In this case, teachers must be educated about Federal law and their Acceptable Use Policy should reflect that they are bound to uphold district policy.
4. Adults should be able to override the filter for specific categories. This particular feature has the biggest potential for abuse. I envision a teacher running from student computer to student computer entering in override credentials, or worse - writing the credentials on the board. I firmly believe that while not all teachers act like professionals, they should still be treated as such. The override accounts should be monitored (by that content filter manager) and inconsistencies should be given to building level administrators. Why override the filter? Youtube.com is a great example of a potential source of educational information - but unrestricted access is probably not a good idea (since its so addicting and some content is not necessarily educationally appropriate). When a government class is discussing a recent national or state election, Youtube.com is a great source of political ads. A teacher ought to have the ability to get that educational material without having to go through a bunch of hoops. Unfortunately, since some teachers cannot seem to control themselves, they will have to be notified that they are being monitored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)