| Tag Archives: wikipedia

Does Size Matter?

by Clarence Fisher

For years I (and many others) have argued in favour of openness in classroom work. “Blogging communities will die closed off from the world,” was my mantra at many conferences I’ve spoken at.

I have argued passionately in favour of openness and used items such as WordPress, Wikipedia and Linux as examples of communities that thrive because they are open to the world. My classroom community and my student’s blogs always have been and still are open to the world. (Drop in and leave a student a comment or two. Trust me, it will make their day.)

But over the last few years we’ve tried to turn our heads quickly to the side, away from the fact that some of the largest, busiest, most profitable networks on the web are closed systems. Apple and it’s entire juggernaut of media rentals, downloads and apps are a famously closed network and people need to be prepared to jump through all of the hoops to be included. Google is creating a growing ecosystem of tools that are hooked together through policies and histories. Facebook is a completely closed network of hundreds of millions of users that does all it can to keep you in it’s space.

It’s hard to be a network of about 65 teachers and students and argue that you know more than these three massive corporations; demanding openness from ourselves and others.

So what is it? Do size and openness matter?

I think it has a lot to do with critical mass. Facebook is a closed system that works hard to gather your information and keep it within the walls of the network. Facebook and Google continuously crash up against each other when it comes to issues of privacy and search results. But Facebook is also closing in on a billion users. Their network is so huge that even though it is a closed system, most users simply never see the walls. The same is true of apps in Apple’s store. Hundreds of thousands of tiny pieces of software, every developer needs to agree to a strict policy where, if Apple doesn’t agree with something that you do, they can ban your productions from there store leaving you on the outside. But these are unusual occurrences, most people never having to worry about these things.

To these closed networks, size matters. They thrive on their size. It gives them the ability to be closed off and to control the hoops that people need to jump through without having to emphasize that the fences even exist.

On the other hand, for small networks and learning communities, I still believe that openness is vital. Having students write and create is good. Having students write and create in online spaces where they have multiple media they can use is better. Having students write and create in open online spaces where they can get feedback from others is even better. The ability to connect with others from around the world and gain their ideas and their perspectives can help a network to grow and strengthen. Only a certain percentage of members are going to be heavily engaged in the activity of your community so finding a way to attract new members or to allow “outsiders” to easily take part will move conversations and learning ahead.

We still have a lot to learn about online networks and communities for learning. Are they fundamentally different from online spaces for commercial purposes? Do they have special needs or do the same rules apply? Are smaller communities where people know and trust each other better or are larger spaces where there are multiple perspectives and voices available more beneficial for learning? Compared to any of the massive commercial spaces online, our communities and networks are relatively small and we need to learn how to best leverage their size and openness for the benefit of our students.

Revisiting Wikipedia

by Clarence Fisher 1 Comment

I make no secret of the fact that I love Wikipedia both personally and professionally. I use it a lot for myself when I am looking for quick information on something. I also send the kids in my class to Wikipedia. The caution I give them is that Wikipedia should be a first source of information to get a solid overview on something and not a last resort.

I know there is (still….) a great debate among many teachers about the worth of it, but I need to tell you, in the rest of society, the debate is over. Wikipedia proves its worth to tens of thousands of people every single day. As with any web based resource, we need to teach our students to be wise consumers and producers of information, but the value and power of this resource cannot be denied.

I think that in education, we are often concerned with providing our students with information that has stood the test of time. We want our students to only have access to the best information; anything less, anything that is questionable or possibly malleable, is frowned upon.

Is this right?

When we live in a society that is changing so quickly, I believe that information that is good enough for here, for now, for our purposes is completely valid.

Besides, as Jimmy Wales stated on twitter this AM, your perspective on wikipedia may all depend on the field that you work in:

Wikipedia: The Easy Link

by Clarence Fisher 2 Comments

I try to teach the students in my class that blogging is not simply writing done on a computer screen. Blogging is something different. It is a more complex process that involves thinking about formatting and fonts, multimedia components and links.

Links at the most fundamental level are what make the web the web. The web without hyperlinks would simply be a bunch of pages on a screen. There would be no interconnections, no chance for networked understandings and networked literacy to emerge. This is why, when we talk abut blogging in my classroom, I tell my students that every single piece of writing they post should include at least one link; and not just to a Wikipedia article.

Don’t get me wrong: I love Wikipedia. In fact, I am a huge supporter of using it in my classroom, I recommend constantly to students that if they need a quick piece of information, a first look at something, that they look things up on Wikipedia. In fact, I think Wikipedia is so good that it has become the easy link for students. When they are searching for further information on something to fill in the holes of their understanding, or searching for further information they can send their readers away to, Wikipedia almost always shows up near the top of their search results. It is so good that it is almost always there. This is why I will let the students in my class post a link to a Wikipedia article in blog posts they have written as a second, or even a third link, but not as a first choice. Using Wikipedia is using the easy link.

I have tried to teach the students in my classroom that unlike a physical bricks and mortar business, on the web, you can gather more readers and support more people’s understandings by sending them away. Being a good source of information online involves giving your readers an opportunity to learn more about their topic, helping them to explore further and deeper. This means providing links out for your readers. But these links cannot simply be the first thing that comes up in a Google search. They need to be thoughtful and interesting. They need to lead people to places they would not necessarily find on their own easily. A link like this is much more interesting than a link done to a Wikipedia article simply to have one in a blog post.

Contstructing Knowledge

by Clarence Fisher 1 Comment

I’m heading to Austin Texas in a few weeks to keynote Tech Forum Southwest. I was in Chicago for Tech Forum in April and truly enjoyed the format and the day that I was fortunate enough to spend there. Besides the fact that I’m expecting great conversations again and great bar-b-que in my quick trip to the South, the session that I’m giving has led me into some interesting places.

The blurb for the session goes like this:

“It used to be hard to find information we needed. BG (Before Google) we had a lot of questions, but not very many answers. This has changed. Now we live in an expanding universe of complex, biased, multimedia texts that come at us from all corners of the globe. How do we help students synthesize information, combining all of the pieces they’ve found scattered across the globe? In his keynote, Clarence Fisher will look at how knowledge is constructed online and how we can help students create the channels they need to gain valuable perspective on our changing world.”

This is a topic that I’ve been passionate about in my classroom and giving this keynote has given me a great opportunity to dig deeper in to it. Where does knowledge come from? How does it grow and change? How is it different online?

One place that I’ve been spending time is behind the scenes at sites such as Wikipedia and Librivox. Both of these sites are global leaders in the construction and sharing of knowledge. At Wikipedia, I’ve enjoyed being behind the scenes and learning something of the culture of the people who regularly contribute to this resource. As well, I’ve learned a great deal about how articles evolve and grow when they are worked on by a community of people. Watching the history files and the discussions has taught me about growth. As well, Wikipedia has a semi regular podcast and newsletter but together by people who are members of their community. They discuss issues that have arisen in their community and the philosophies behind what is going on at the site.

Librivox is less familiar then Wikipedia to many, but is another treasure trove of information. A repository of recordings of public domain books, they offer a huge catalogue that is increased by volunteers. Again, Librivox does this in a model that is open to the world, taking recordings from anyone and also posting several different podcasts feeds of what is happening at the site.

I think it is both interesting and important that both of these sites offer tools to look “behind thes scenes” at what is happening. From both sites you can gain a sense of how the knowledge contained in their spaces is changing and developing. This is something we just don’t get in the offline world where instead knowledge is published and seen as a finished product. An important difference and one that students need to understand.

Culture and Online Communities

by Clarence Fisher 1 Comment

Online, there are communities of all sizes. By the hundreds of thousands, some are huge stopping places that collect tens of thousands of users, while others are small, with only a few people who contribute and are struggling to stay alive.

Like real communities, each of these spaces has a culture of its own that can be read, developed and changed. New users are expected to respect the culture of a community that has already developed and are expected to know “the rules.” Not all online spaces are positive. Some are outright racist while others have a culture of respect built into them by their users and moderators.

For example, Wikipedia is a massively successful online community. With over 10, 300, 000 user accounts as of today, they have been very successful at creating a community which people want to belong to. Wikipedia encourages it users to post profiles of themselves which thousands of people have done. While there can be little personal information contained in the work that users complete on the articles themselves, many of their profiles are huge and ever expanding as people write about themselves, the types of articles they have worked on and what types of credentials (if any) they might have.

wikipediaprofile Many of these profiles are both informative and funny and people are willing to share significant pieces of information about themselves. Wikipedia even provides all sorts of banners and “barnstar” awards for people who have taken a leadership role on the website.

Wikipedia is a great example of a global community that is transparent and positive. The community is accomplishing a massive task while still encouraging their users to be individuals.

Other online communities are very different. For example, both Youtube and the CBC also have open comment systems. While dramatically different in personality from each other, both of these systems are much less transparent from the culture that has developed on Wikipedia. In both places, the majority of users have not posted personal profile pages, or if they have, they contain little information about the actual users.

Both of these sites have developed a much different culture than that of Wikipedia. In both places, comments can be outright rude and (on Youtube) filled with profanity. I believe that many of the culture “problems” on these sites can be attributed to users being allowed to remain anonymous and by a lack of, or weak moderation. Of course, the internet being a global space that is occupied by all sorts of people, these two sites are assembling a different community than Wikipedia has.

So what comes out of this? What are the lessons that can be learned for educators who may be growing online communities? I think there are several lessons to be learned:

1.) The culture of an online community is something that needs to be purposefully grown and encouraged. A positive functioning community does not emerge on its own. It needs to be guided, moderated and developed. Teachers have a significant role in this.

2.) Students need to be encouraged to develop their own space and profile online. While many schools may be reluctant to do this and while these profiles need to be checked over carefully by knowledgeable adults to ensure that students are not sharing personal information, the development of an online profile and space will help students become true contributors and members of their community.

3.) Teachers need to be present in different ways in their online communities. They need to be mentors and models, posting their own information and profiles, while encouraging students to do the same. They must be active writers and participants in the community. Co – learners and not simply administrators.

4.) Communities should grow and be open. Students need to learn to function in global online communities where they do not know all of the participants who are involved. This small scale modeling that might involved several classrooms will benefit students much more than a closed, one classroom only type of community. I know many systems have policies about the openness of their communities, but this is a battle worth fighting.

5.) Students need practice to become good netizens. Participating in online communities as a special event or a one time type of thing will do them little benefit. This needs to be a central pillar of how learning happens in classrooms.

We are still new to much of this in education so we have a lot to learn about these ideas, but the effect they can have on the learning of our students makes these things worth exploring.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: