tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6627797617220843459.post6635498465162522908..comments2007-06-27T19:23:53.459-05:00Brian Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11428645812277414528noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6627797617220843459.post-30020173579042846992007-06-27T19:23:00.000-05:002007-06-27T19:23:00.000-05:00Doug 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.)"<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks<BR/><BR/>"By blocking sources of information that students actually use, we will continue to make school (and teachers) less relevant in kids lives. A tragedy."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.D Holtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02740763550543657462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6627797617220843459.post-64387455311753999632007-06-23T11:22:00.000-05:002007-06-23T11:22:00.000-05:00I 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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.Brian Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11428645812277414528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6627797617220843459.post-10765378749269906442007-06-23T05:47:00.000-05:002007-06-23T05:47:00.000-05:00Hi Brian,<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>By blocking sources of information that students actually use, we will continue to make school (and teachers) less relevant in kids lives. A tragedy.<BR/><BR/>Oh, I also wrote a column about Wikipedia a while ago if you are interested.<BR/><BR/>http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/wikipedia-ban-it-or-boost-it.html<BR/><BR/>Thanks for listening and all the best,<BR/><BR/>DougDoughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05051218236258080492noreply@blogger.com