Are Wikis Worth the
Time?
Two responses debate this answer:
YES-Dean Shareski:
Wikipedia might be the best example of how teaching and
learning is changing. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia created by you and me.
Anyone can add to it, edit it, and even vandalize it. Wikipedia provides a
place to contribute as well as consume. The obvious comparison is to printed encyclopedias.
These are limited as a container of information.
NO-Carol Ann Winkler:
The free encyclopedia is no bargain for schools. Its content
is the ongoing aggregate of a radical authorship policy: anyone at any time can
write anything in Wikipedia. The result is a cheap imitation of a scholarly traditional
resource. There is no deterrent to publishing bad information. And so by
intentional design, the information in Wikipedia is never authoritative.
When using Wikipedia, teachers will need to decide how they
use website in the research process. If they allow students to include them in
their citations is still up for debate. Time needs to be spent showing student
how to deconstruct articles and understand the process of their creation.
Nevertheless, students can use Wikipedia to get their ideas about information,
then search a legitimate website for accurate information. Wikipedia proponents think most readers are
willing to compare its information with what they already know and will rewrite
articles to restore quality. Young students do not have a knowledge base for
such comparison.
Proponents also argue that students should never accept just
one source of information anyway. The Internet versions of scholarly
traditional encyclopedia provide the online access, the hyperlinking, the
keyword searching, and the continual updating. Students experience free online
access to this reliable information after a simple login process. But that’s
only if schools show the wisdom of investing in their libraries so they can
provide the resources students need.
Winkler, C (2005). Are Wikis Worth the Time? International Society for Technology in
Education. 6-7.