Wikipedia & Education...

I have been thinking of writing on this for a while. I have been told throughout my Masters Degree not to use Wikipedia as a source, and not to suggest to students when on practicum to use Wikipedia as a source. I have always found this a little bizarre and way to biased for my usual standard. I have always believed that, where you can, you use all the resources at your disposal. This would include Wikipedia in an educational setting.

On the weird front, I use "wikis" as a means of providing information to students and as a means of allowing students to post and share information amongst each other. It is an excellent learning tool. It is also a tool I need to get better at using and utilising. I have no qualms about admitting to being a technology novice. I, am though, keen to incorporate as much technology into my classroom as I can. Let's face it, technology is the way of the future. I would be negligent if I did not learn to use it and facilitate my students in using it.

So, back to Wikipedia. What I have been taught is that "crowd sourcing" is code for unreliable. Simply, any one can post any old garbage online in, or on, a Wikipedia page. This is in fact true. However, part of the learning process is teaching students to be discerning in how they locate information and how they address issues of usefulness, reliability and bias. Strangely enough, I think, particularly in Years 11 & 12 that students are more than capable of making these judgment calls, and they must be afforded the opportunity to do so.

I encourage my students to use Wikipedia, often as a first point of call. One of the earlier lessons in my programming deals with Wikipedia and how to use it as a research tool. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is a wonderful resource. The vast majority of pages contain links to other material, usually the source material for the Wikipedia page itself. Therefore, if students know where to find these links on a Wikipedia page, then they might only be one, two, or perhaps a mere three 'clicks' away from the pot of gold at the end of the Wikipedia rainbow, the primary source.

The other point of interest that most people seemingly fail to recognise is that most Wikipedia pages include a disclaimer at the top when the content / material is deemed to be of a questionable standard. This disclaimer tends to suggest that there are problems with the citations, or lack thereof, with the Wikipedia page. I would argue that most students would read the disclaimer and recognise that there were 'issues' regarding usefulness and reliability. I encourage my students to separate "the sheep from the goats" (I used this line on my last practicum :D).

Final point. Wikipedia is not the be all to end all with respect to research. There will be times when students are required to look beyond the internet, perhaps even do some hard yards in a real library as opposed to a virtual one. But, with the ever-increasing amount of material being digitised and uploaded to the virtual realm, it is possible to research and write an academic essay or paper without leaving home. I, for example, can access my university library (University of Western Sydney) and all the digital resources it has by using my student card and logging in remotely.

So, why are some educators scared of Wikipedia?

Viva Wikipedia!

Plagiarism...

Plagiarism is not unique or a monopoly held by any one country or institution; it is universal. However, it is interesting when it occurs in Indonesia for no other reason than it reminds me of this saying that often does the rounds during discussion of Indonesian copyright law; Indonesia does not know copyright but rather the right to copy. This is not nearly as funny as it sounds and is serious. Yet, some people never learn that the best theory when writing academic papers is to err on the side of caution.

The Jakarta Globe is reporting on the most recent alleged act of plagiarism to have occurred in Indonesia.

The cold, hard simple reality is that plagiarism is theft. It is also academic and reputation suicide. It is hard to mistakenly or inadvertently plagiarise the work of another. There might be occasion where the work has been sloppy and lazy, but it is rare that the plagiarism was done inadvertently.

Being back at school and doing a Masters, I have adopted the following approach; "when in doubt, cite!"

The thing about plagiarism is that you will never get away with it. Sooner or later someone somewhere will recognise the work and then you are busted, your reputation in tatters. It is just not worth it. Besides, and it is worth noting, there are dedicated websites and internal univeristy sites that specifically address issues of plagiarism. This in turn makes it easy for lecturers and tutors to discover plagiarism. It has become as simple as typing in a phrase or paragraph of text and clicking send. The text is then cross-matched through relevant databases and bingo, you're busted!

It is just too easy to get caught out now that it is not worth the risk.

When I used to teach, I always made it explicitly clear to my students that plagiarism was theft, it was worse than cheating, and if you got caught you would be history! It was good to see that in the first instance this year at Parahyangan University in Bandung that the academic in question resigned, however, it will be equally interesting to see whether the second instance of plagiarism this year is dealt with in a similar way.

My thoughts on the matter seem pretty clear, don't they?

Internet Filters and Pornography...

Not everything is as easy as installing a filter, this includes blocking pornography on the internet. The New South Wales Department of Education has installed filters on school computers presumably to ensure that students, and teachers, do not have the ability to access porn and to ensure that their time is productive in accessing appropriate academic and education-related sites.

Oops!

The filter has some problems. This is highlighted in the case of a Year 10 student who typed in the search term "swallow". Yes, I know, you can see where this is going already. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, for this particular Year 10 student, the sites that came up had nothing to do with a little bird but rather some hard core porn that dealt not with the little swallow but with a whole different set of swallow circumstances.

But, turning this into a farce is that harmless sites like the Minister of Education, Verity Firth's, own web page is blocked by the filter.

This is the problem with filters. They are not discriminating enough and too discriminating all in the same algorithm. It is perhaps better to err on the side of caution and block web pages and sites that are harmless if the filter could ensure that it was doing the job it was supposed to and filtering out all the harmful web pages and sites. However, this example clearly shows that the filters are not up to that task.

The reality is that even the constant updating of lists is of limited use. Pornographers are smart enough, and technologically savvy enough, to up and move their material to a new web page address and avoid the filter. Web / internet users are also generally sufficiently technologically savvy to be able to follow along with the pornographers, if they are so inclined to do so.

There must be a better way to ensure that access is restricted in a manner that prevents the access to pornography while maintaining access to the sites required by school-aged children.

This begs the question are the filters a worthwhile investment or a waste of time?

It would seem that at this present time filters are not working and it is time to invest in finding a better and more effective alternative.