Academic Perspectives On Wikipedia, Still Clueless After All These Years ? Options

[Jonny Cache]

I tagged along to a conference on college and university teaching that was hosted in Traverse City, Michigan last week and naturally couldn't resist dropping in on a session entitled "Using Wikipedia To Teach Critical Thinking Skills". The speaker, Michael Lorenzen, is affiliated with the Park Library of Central Michigan University and is currently the Editor of the Michigan Library Association Forum.

I will reserve my specific remarks on Michael's talk until I am prepared to do a formal style of review, perhaps saving it for the blog — when and if I get around to it. And you all know how that is.

As a generic observation, however, this talk made me slightly more aware than I was before of just how many myths about Wikipedia persist among a population whose critical thinking skills we might have expected to be rather better honed than the average member of the public. It now seems likely to me that I have been spoiled by the level of e-street savvy that prevails in my own local circle. No doubt on account of my own e-fluence. No doubt.

No matter — honing the hone-challenged is what we do.

With regards to his own experience, Michael asserted that he created over 200 articles on Wikipedia. I did not think to ask whether he edited under his own name or not and I cannot find a User:Michael Lorenzen, so maybe we can find his contributions under some mutation of his nom réel. Or not.

There is, perhaps not incidentally, an AFD that ended in deleting an article on a person who appears to be the same Michael Lorenzen.

To be continued …

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[KamrynMatika]

User:LarryQ? He voted to keep the article, lives in Michigan and has created quite a few articles [and claims to be a historian and scholar, and mentions marking his student's papers...]

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika:

[Kato]

In my experience in the real world, teachers I've spoken to are increasingly distressed, irritated, and exhausted with wikipedia. Whittling away the plagiarised wikipedia passages from written work and having to counter falsehoods gleaned from Der Jimbo's grand folly places another unwelcome burden on what is already a difficult task.

However, when I went online and into the Richard Dawkins site to canvass opinions from the Dawkinsians, I found myself defending the evidence of wikipedia's damage against some really naive arguments. I think I did a pretty good job, but it was apparent that even amongst computer literate "free-thinkers", wikipedia's wreckless processes are still trusted way more than they deserve to be. One poster insisted that errors are removed almost immediately, seemed to be confident that a "team of overseers" are there on hand to constantly improve content, sceptically demanding that I show evidence of WP carrying falsehoods. Another naive poster, who again knew little about it, admired WP's "scientific method of improvement". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Jonny Cache]

User:LarryQ? He voted to keep the article, lives in Michigan and has created quite a few articles [and claims to be a historian and scholar, and mentions marking his student's papers …]

Yes, that sounds like a good guess — going by the "Living in Michigan in a Similar Way Litmus Test", also known as the "Petoskey Touchstone". For the moment, however, I will not pursue the question of the speaker's Un-Real Life (URL) unless some facet of it becomes essential to my present focus.

For the present purpose, Michael's talk served as a bellwether, a sleeping dogma waker. He was clearly more familiar with Wikipedia than the rest of the session attendees — this Reporter excepted, of course — and so the fact that I heard him echoing so many Tenets Of Wikipedism with only the barest hints of reflective critique told me that the upper bound of Wikipedia wariness in Academe was fearfully lower than I had previously guessed.

That is a presenting symptom that presents a clear and present challenge to this Review. We simply must exert ourselves to do a better job of Critique, not to mention Hue and Cry, than we have here-2-4 done.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

In his talk, Michael referred us in passing to an article of his in the Michigan Library Association Forum, entitled "Vandals, Administrators, and Sockpuppets, Oh My! An Ethnographic Study of Wikipedia’s Handling of Problem Behavior".

I haven't gotten around to reading this yet, and I'm a few days behind in my other work, but it may be worth a look, if only to give us further insight into the breadth and depth of the information gap that we are charged to cross, so to spark.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

I have invited Michael here to join the discussion and give his perspective.

Jon Awbrey

[Revision]

I tagged along to a conference on college and university teaching that was hosted in Traverse City, Michigan last week and naturally couldn't resist dropping in on a session entitled "Using Wikipedia To Teach Critical Thinking Skills" given by Michael Lorenzen, who is affiliated with the Park Library of Central Michigan University.

Sigh.

Want to know why Wikipedia isn't good for "critical thinking" skills? Here's an excellent example.

Popularity rules on Wikipedia. Yeah, not only search engine ranking groupies, but with folks who probably never read or studied a subject they're questioning as "non-important".

I have an intense interest with the Steady State theory of the universe (or it's more modern form, Quasi-Steady State theory). For a time, before the "Big Bang" evolved from the muck of it's Creation, it was the leading cosmological theory. To claim the hogwash below, not only tries to judge on no other merit that a personal opinion, but rethrashing his own pet ideals...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk...ersonal_attacks

I for one strongly object to both the allegation of a "personal attack" by Joke137, and to the statement that the exclusion of QSS is a "monumental editorial mistake". QSS being big bang at N = 1 does not give QSS the standing of big bang theory in the least. In fact, under Occam's razor the need for an extra parameter to achieve the same result argues against QSS being preferable.
This template is reserved for the most significant articles in the category of physical cosmology. Lacking any evidence that QSS is itself highly respected and/or its article higly sought after, QSS does not belong in this template. I call on James S. to rescind his response above and to apologize the Joke137 for his inappropriate and unfounded personal attack allegation. --EMS | Talk 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So how much of an expert is the guy? He can sure sprout things like this...

Perhaps an example from the realm of relativity would be helpful: Brans-Dicke theory has a tunable parameter ω such that it correponds to general relativity when ω = ∞.

After reading such tripe, I visited his web page, and behold the guy is discussing original research on his very front page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ems57fcva

And, yes, you can see his interest in the whole "Brans-Dicke theory".

But nowhere will you see that the guy as any academic training in the field, any expertise to judge the quality of the entries. He just has a fascination for XYZ topics, instead.

Is that academic discourse? Is that peer-review? Is that "critical thinking"?

No.

I'm more worried that psuedo-science can slip through, and with folks with agendas like above (especially claiming the most competitive counterpart to the "Big Bang" theory isn't worthy for their inclusion), you can bet your bottom dollar they'll "pass" junk science as "reality" -- because some guy can quote something from the "Brans-Dicke theory" to glassy-eyed 15 year-old boys visiting after a manga rewrite campaign. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Wikipedia teaches no more "critical thinking" as teaching a Democrat or Republican partisans manners and ethics.

[Jonny Cache]

Sigh.

Want to know why Wikipedia isn't good for "critical thinking" skills? Here's an excellent example.

Popularity rules on Wikipedia. Yeah, not only search engine ranking groupies, but with folks who probably never read or studied a subject they're questioning as "non-important".

I have an intense interest with the Steady State theory of the universe (or it's more modern form, Quasi-Steady State theory). For a time, before the "Big Bang" evolved from the muck of it's Creation, it was the leading cosmological theory. To claim the hogwash below, not only tries to judge on no other merit that a personal opinion, but rethrashing his own pet ideals …

Template talk:Cosmology#No personal attacks

I for one strongly object to both the allegation of a "personal attack" by Joke137, and to the statement that the exclusion of QSS is a "monumental editorial mistake". QSS being big bang at N = 1 does not give QSS the standing of big bang theory in the least. In fact, under Occam's razor the need for an extra parameter to achieve the same result argues against QSS being preferable.

This template is reserved for the most significant articles in the category of physical cosmology. Lacking any evidence that QSS is itself highly respected and/or its article higly sought after, QSS does not belong in this template. I call on James S. to rescind his response above and to apologize the Joke137 for his inappropriate and unfounded personal attack allegation. —EMS | Talk 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So how much of an expert is the guy? He can sure sprout things like this …

Perhaps an example from the realm of relativity would be helpful: Brans-Dicke theory has a tunable parameter ω such that it correponds to general relativity when ω = ∞.

After reading such tripe, I visited his web page, and behold the guy is discussing original research on his very front page …

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ems57fcva

And, yes, you can see his interest in the whole "Brans-Dicke theory".

But nowhere will you see that the guy as any academic training in the field, any expertise to judge the quality of the entries. He just has a fascination for XYZ topics, instead.

Is that academic discourse? Is that peer-review? Is that "critical thinking"?

No.

I'm more worried that psuedo-science can slip through, and with folks with agendas like above (especially claiming the most competitive counterpart to the "Big Bang" theory isn't worthy for their inclusion), you can bet your bottom dollar they'll "pass" junk science as "reality" — because some guy can quote something from the "Brans-Dicke theory" to glassy-eyed 15 year-old boys visiting after a manga rewrite campaign. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Wikipedia teaches no more "critical thinking" as teaching a Democrat or Republican partisans manners and ethics.

Well, before we get transported too far e-field by this "Don't Be A Brans-Dicke" bizness, let's see if we can relate it to the topic at the top.

Most of the Library And Information Science folks that I know are fairly well-attuned to the problems of bringing their clientele up-to-snuff with the skills of Information Literacy that are demanded by the duties of responsible citizenship in our post*modern day and age.

Like any other discipline, however, some disciples are more hip to theory than to practice, some disciples are bent just the opposite way, and there is frequently a gap between the two inclinations that makes for a lack of power in action.

That would be my first guess as to what I observed in the particular session that I attended.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[GlassBeadGame]

Sigh.

Want to know why Wikipedia isn't good for "critical thinking" skills? Here's an excellent example.

Popularity rules on Wikipedia. Yeah, not only search engine ranking groupies, but with folks who probably never read or studied a subject they're questioning as "non-important".

I have an intense interest with the Steady State theory of the universe (or it's more modern form, Quasi-Steady State theory). For a time, before the "Big Bang" evolved from the muck of it's Creation, it was the leading cosmological theory. To claim the hogwash below, not only tries to judge on no other merit that a personal opinion, but rethrashing his own pet ideals …

Template talk:Cosmology#No personal attacks

I for one strongly object to both the allegation of a "personal attack" by Joke137, and to the statement that the exclusion of QSS is a "monumental editorial mistake". QSS being big bang at N = 1 does not give QSS the standing of big bang theory in the least. In fact, under Occam's razor the need for an extra parameter to achieve the same result argues against QSS being preferable.

This template is reserved for the most significant articles in the category of physical cosmology. Lacking any evidence that QSS is itself highly respected and/or its article higly sought after, QSS does not belong in this template. I call on James S. to rescind his response above and to apologize the Joke137 for his inappropriate and unfounded personal attack allegation. —EMS | Talk 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So how much of an expert is the guy? He can sure sprout things like this …

Perhaps an example from the realm of relativity would be helpful: Brans-Dicke theory has a tunable parameter ω such that it correponds to general relativity when ω = ∞.

After reading such tripe, I visited his web page, and behold the guy is discussing original research on his very front page …

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ems57fcva

And, yes, you can see his interest in the whole "Brans-Dicke theory".

But nowhere will you see that the guy as any academic training in the field, any expertise to judge the quality of the entries. He just has a fascination for XYZ topics, instead.

Is that academic discourse? Is that peer-review? Is that "critical thinking"?

No.

I'm more worried that psuedo-science can slip through, and with folks with agendas like above (especially claiming the most competitive counterpart to the "Big Bang" theory isn't worthy for their inclusion), you can bet your bottom dollar they'll "pass" junk science as "reality" — because some guy can quote something from the "Brans-Dicke theory" to glassy-eyed 15 year-old boys visiting after a manga rewrite campaign. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Wikipedia teaches no more "critical thinking" as teaching a Democrat or Republican partisans manners and ethics.

Well, before we get transported too far e-field by this "Don't Be A Brans-Dicke" bizness, let's see if we can relate it to the topic at the top.

Most of the Library And Information Science folks that I know are fairly well-attuned to the problems of bringing their clientele up-to-snuff with the skills of Information Literacy that are demanded by the duties of responsible citizenship in our post*modern day and age.

Like any other discipline, however, some disciples are more hip to theory than to practice, some disciples are bent just the opposite way, and there is frequently a gap between the two inclinations that makes for a lack of power in action.

That would be my first guess as to what I observed in the particular session that I attended.

Jon Awbrey

I think inviting Mr. Lorenzen to discuss the matter here is a good idea. The problems of Wikipedia are non-obvious. You have to understand WP to criticize WP in a meaningful way. This guy has made the effort needed for the former which means he might now benefit from the latter.

PS. I like the faint bow to formality in your post. It becomes you.

[Revision]

Most Library And Information Science folks that I know are fairly well-attuned to the problems of bringing their students and patronizing public ↑-2-snuff in the skills of Information Literacy that are demanded by Life In Our Post*Modern Day And Age.

Patronizing public? Oh, how sweet even an arrow pointing to my post. Guess ASCII artwork is important to you, huh?

Such an enterprise is barking up the wrong tree. Because there's no substitute for studying a book cover-to-cover (I can bet that scares a 15 year-old more than missing his favorite anime convention), and actually understanding it -- not the Cliff Note's nor Dummies edition. Let alone studying a field and working in it.

Critical thinking isn't "taught" on the web. It's taught when a kid learns to question what is spoonfed to them in real life (especially by agenda driven "elites"). It's enforced when s/he doesn't accept the status quo as the only "authority" on a subject, and gets burned for bucking the "system."

Wikipedia is the fast food of knowledge. You can get a snack that isn't good for you quick, but it shouldn't be your staple diet.

This post has been edited by Revision:

[Jonny Cache]

PS. I like the faint bow to formality in your post. It becomes you.

Sadly, all 2 sadly, Jonny Cache was far 2 much the EZ Rider to live 4 ever …

Jon Awbrey

[Revision]

The problems of Wikipedia are non-obvious. You have to understand WP to criticize WP in a meaningful way.

...Here comes the "elitism"...

The very issue why Wikipedia was opened to the masses to create to hopefully teach the Encyclopedia Britannica with it's "snotty editors" a lesson.

But one thing that can't be removed, is the ego associated in creating this drive-thru restuarant; for folks just have to be an "insider" to "understand" what they're even "talking about" (complete with it's WP:INSERTTRASH HERE lexicon).

Then in turn, the same folks wonder why other folks take Wikipedia at face value? Because the "insiders" love their little corner of the web to spank Wikipedia, instead.

Because biting the hand that feeds will leave them on the "outside".

...brrrrrr...

[GlassBeadGame]

Most Library And Information Science folks that I know are fairly well-attuned to the problems of bringing their students and patronizing public ↑-2-snuff in the skills of Information Literacy that are demanded by Life In Our Post*Modern Day And Age.

Patronizing public? Oh, how sweet even an arrow pointing to my post. Guess ASCII artwork is important to you, huh?

Such an enterprise is barking up the wrong tree. Because there's no substitute for studying a book cover-to-cover (I can bet that scares a 15 year-old more than missing his favorite anime convention), and actually understanding it -- not the Cliff Note's nor Dummies edition. Let alone studying a field and working in it.

Critical thinking isn't "taught" on the web. It's taught when a kid learns to question what is spoonfed to them in real life (especially by agenda driven "elites"). It's enforced when s/he doesn't accept the status quo as the only "authority" on a subject, and gets burned for bucking the "system."

Wikipedia is the fast food of knowledge. You can get a snack that isn't good for you quick, but it shouldn't be your staple diet.

Well ok. But maybe you might want to post your concerns in a new thread under "Articles" if most of your concerns are about a specific article. The creator of the thread was looking for something specific here, I think. I know that your concerns are "academic" in a sense and you wanted to post in the right place, especially being your first posts and all. But "Academic" here means the investigation of WP itself by academics.

[Jonny Cache]

Most Library And Information Science folks that I know are fairly well-attuned to the problems of bringing their students and patronizing public ↑-2-snuff in the skills of Information Literacy that are demanded by Life In Our Post*Modern Day And Age.

Patronizing public? Oh, how sweet even an arrow pointing to my post. Guess ASCII artwork is important to you, huh?

UR nu here, but folks who knew him, perforce to love him, will tell you that Jonny was a 2nd, er, 3rd thought kinda thimker, so it was ∀-most ∀-ways best to set that particular bottle o' whine out to breathe a wile b4 diving in to critique the taste o' it.

NE way, I had already revisioned the text b4 moving on, but the "uarr" symbol is usually meant to be read "up", as its textual context in "↑-2-snuff" shoulda clued ya.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Revision]

I know that your concerns are "academic" in a sense and you wanted to post in the right place, especially being your first posts and all. But "Academic" here means the investigation of WP itself by academics.

I'm commenting on his statement about associating Wikipedia with "critical thinking". "Critical thinking" isn't just a course one can learn from using Wikipedia, it's a practice. Technology alone won't create what can't be taught online.

Such Utopia talk reminds me of the PR over Java. And the computer eliminating paper.

When knowledge is censored on a whim/bias/counter-revolution (my example above), with rules that change depending on a person's POV, what does a kid learn that is about "critical thinking"? What does it bring to the academic round table discussions?

Fast food academics.

Cliff Notes of knowledge for academic dissertations (let alone any study outside academia) is a disservice.

UR nu here, but folks who knew him, perforce to love him, will tell you that Jonny was a 2nd, er, 3rd thought kinda thimker, so it was ∀-most ∀-ways best to set that particular bottle o' whine out to breathe a wile b4 diving in to critique the taste o' it.

NE way, I had already revisioned the text b4 moving on, but the "uarr" symbol is usually meant to be read "up", as its textual context in "↑-2-snuff" shoulda clued ya.

New to THIS forum, but not to Wikipedia, let alone to forums. lol

Sidenote: BTW, I liked Johnny Cash way before you were born. My favorite song of his is an hard to find oldie called, "The Wreck of old '97". Look it up. Dad used to go to his concerts back in the 50s, and I remember all of those 8-track tapes of him, too. Funny after Johnny is dead, how many groupies he has. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Nathan]

Jonny: Don't forget: "To know him is to love him is to know him" - Data/Ira Graves

[GlassBeadGame]

I know that your concerns are "academic" in a sense and you wanted to post in the right place, especially being your first posts and all. But "Academic" here means the investigation of WP itself by academics.

I'm commenting on his statement about associating Wikipedia with "critical thinking". "Critical thinking" isn't just a course one can learn from using Wikipedia, it's a practice. Technology alone won't create what can't be taught online.

Such Utopia talk reminds me of the PR over Java. And the computer eliminating paper.

When knowledge is censored on a whim/bias/counter-revolution (my example above), with rules that change depending on a person's POV, what does a kid learn that is about "critical thinking"? What does it bring to the academic round table discussions?

Fast food academics.

Cliff Notes of knowledge for academic dissertations (let alone any study outside academia) is a disservice.

UR nu here, but folks who knew him, perforce to love him, will tell you that Jonny was a 2nd, er, 3rd thought kinda thimker, so it was ∀-most ∀-ways best to set that particular bottle o' whine out to breathe a wile b4 diving in to critique the taste o' it.

NE way, I had already revisioned the text b4 moving on, but the "uarr" symbol is usually meant to be read "up", as its textual context in "↑-2-snuff" shoulda clued ya.

New to THIS forum, but not to Wikipedia, let alone to forums. lol

Sidenote: BTW, I liked Johnny Cash way before you were born. My favorite song of his is an hard to find oldie called, "The Wreck of old '97". Look it up. Dad used to go to his concerts back in the 50s, and I remember all of those 8-track tapes of him, too. Funny after Johnny is dead, how many groupies he has. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

You don't know what generation your talking to. My first memories are of brown bottle littering the kitchen table while a farmer's "Victrola" played 45's with that yellow Sun Records label,. "Cry, Cry, Cry" and the crackle of heat lightning in the distance. Years later "The Johnny Cash Show" with Dylan, Niel Young and McGuinn would be one the kindest mitigators of generational warfare.

J.C. might be a little younger than me but I'm sure he comes by the moniker honestly.

[Revision]

You don't know what generation your talking to. My first memories are of brown bottle littering the kitchen table while a farmer's "Victrola" played 45's

If they post like 15 year-olds what do you expect?

That "Victrola" wasn't playing 78s? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

But that said, I'm 40, and not a kid (alas!) anymore.

[GlassBeadGame]

You don't know what generation your talking to. My first memories are of brown bottle littering the kitchen table while a farmer's "Victrola" played 45's

If they post like 15 year-olds what do you expect?

That "Victrola" wasn't playing 78s? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

But that said, I'm 40, and not a kid (alas!) anymore.

"Victrola" probably properly refers to the manual crank device of an earlier period that persisted as idiom for any simple record player. This usage was probably more common among rural people. My mother, whose washing machines always had "wringers" above the load, never called a refrigerator anything but a "frig-aye-deer." Same thing really.

[Revision]

"Victrola" probably properly refers to the manual crank device of an earlier period that persisted as idiom for any simple record player. This usage was probably more common among rural people. My mother, whose washing machines always had "wringers" above the load, never called a refrigerator anything but a "frig-aye-deer." Same thing really.

Yeah, because my grandma had one with all those 78s (along with a peddle operated, later turned into a motorized, Singer sewing machine). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

And it's called a "frig-aye-deer" because it was the brand name of the most popular fridge of the day (which grandma still had in the 2000 <-- those things last forever!).

Yep, she even had a pot bellied stove in her home upto the late 70s (and she wasn't even a hillbilly, but a Wisconsinite).

Meanwhile, us born and bred Southerners lived a more modern life. hehehe