Academia: December 2007 Archive Page

In Reason, David Harsanyi reviews The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture, by Andrew Keen.

"Can a social worker in Des Moines really be considered credible in arguing with a trained physicist over string theory?" he asks, referring to Wikipedia, the online, user created encyclopedia. "Can a car mechanic have as knowledgeable a 'POV' as that of a trained geneticist on the nature of hereditary diseases? Can we trust a religious fundamentalist to know more about the origins of mankind than a PhD in evolutionary biology?"

Well, yes and no. I, of course, have the prerogative to trust whomever I want. In the same way I once gathered my news from The National Inquirer and listened to Art Bell's late-night radio broadcasts for clues to my place in the universe, today I can ferret out similarly useless information webwide.

The more significant point, one that Keen ignores, is that the Web 2.0 explosion has provided me with something I've never had before: access to ongoing discussions between and among trained physicists, trained geneticists, and religious fundamentalists. Laymen as well as experts are now invited to sit in on these conversations. On occasion, the amateurs get it right, triggering dramatic results. Matt Drudge can announce the Monica Lewinsky scandal while Newsweek dithers about publishing it. Or a blog like Little Green Footballs can help catch Dan Rather peddling forged documents about the president's service record. Rather than undermining information, this new access has expanded users' understanding of the world.

I'd like to add just a bit to Harsanyi's defense of the conversational nature of Wikipedia. The social worker who isn't qualified to argue with a trained physicist over string theory can, of course, contribute to an article on social work. But more important, if the social worker asks questions on the string theory discussion page, or even makes bad edits in the article itself, that's a sign that at least one member of the audience doesn't understand the Wikipedia article, and it's a beacon calling for others to fix the problem, making the article more accessible to the social workers of the world, and in the process, improving it.

This is, of course, the very reason why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for college research papers (or even middle-school ones), but quite frankly nobody should turn to any encyclopedia, not even the printed encyclopedias gathering dust on the library shelves, as the final destination of any serious research. (Encyclopedias provide a general overview, putting a topic into a general context, but you won't find original research in any encyclopedia, you'll just find someone's summary of sources that a serious research should really go read first-hand.)


Because the discussion over each article happens transparently, with each mis-step and correction chronicled in the article history page, the enemy of usefulness on the internet is not the nature of the information itself, but rather the naive attitude of a reader who does not approach that information with the proper critical standpoint.  Each year when I explain to freshmen my attitude towards Wikipedia, somebody in the class is shocked to learn that anybody -- anybody -- can edit an article. Recently, one young man said, "They wouldn't let them put it on the internet if it wasn't true!"

I have high praise for the high school teacher who, instead of banning Wikipedia, instead assigns students to read the discussion page of a controversial topic, so that the students who go on to college will arrive with the idea that college is not all about hunting through textbooks or listening to lectures to find the "right answers," but rather that college is an opportunity to learn the skills necessary to succeed in an information-centered world.

I just got this e-mail. Scratch is an amazing tool designed to teach programming to kids. My nine-year-old loves it. I'm planning to use Scratch in my "New Media Projects" class next fall.

Because of your interest in Scratch, we thought you would like to 
know about the Scratch@MIT conference that we are hosting next summer.

The conference will provide an opportunity for educators, 
researchers, developers, and other members of the worldwide Scratch 
community to gather together to share experiences and discuss future 
possibilities for Scratch.

The conference will take place on the MIT campus on July 24-26, 2008. 
Everyone is invited to submit proposals for presentations, panel 
discussions, and workshops (deadline: February 15, 2008).

For more information, see http://scratch.mit.edu/conference

Best wishes for a Happy New Year -- and we hope to see you at MIT 
next July!

I'm misquoted on your December press page.

What I wrote was

When students are writing about some areas of popular culture, user-authored sites such as Wikipedia and Urbandictionary, or game databases like MobyGames are actually far more useful than academic sources (which take months or even years to appear). 

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/weblog/permalink/banning-wikipedia-at-school-go/

But the quote appears as

When students are writing about popular culture, user-authored sites like Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary are far more useful than academic sources.

I hope you will repair the inaccuracies.

(Submitted Dec 8... I'll give them a while to respond before I publish this.)

Information Week:

One of the most prestigious U.K. universities has begun to scan the social networking sites seeking snapshots and other evidence of misbehavior that qualifies for formal disciplinary action. Students at Oxford University are outraged that school leaders are scanning Facebook and disciplining students based on what they find there.

Inside Higher Ed offers short stories on two student papers that are struggling to keep their administrations at bay:

At Oklahoma State University, the editors of the Daily O'Collegian, the more than 80-year-old campus newspaper, have for several weeks refused to let the articles they write for the print publication appear on ocolly.com, the newspaper's online portal, because the student journalists are at odds with the university administration's publications board over who should have the power to hire and fire staff for the online operation.

And the editor of the student newspaper at Connecticut's Quinnipiac University has been threatened with the loss of his job in the wake of his public criticism of a university policy that bars the weekly Quinnipiac Chronicle from posting articles on its Web site until after they have already appeared in print. The editor, Jason Braff, argued that the policy impaired the newspaper's ability to keep the campus informed, but Quinnipiac officials said it was designed to improve the accuracy of the Chronicle's reporting, "in light of a student's enthusiasm to release 'breaking news.'"

I must have missed this video when I was sick earlier this semester... Michael Wesch at Kansas State University:

... the basic idea is to create a 3 minute video highlighting the most important characteristics of students today - how they learn, what they need to learn, their goals, hopes, dreams, what their lives will be like, and what kinds of changes they will experience in their lifetime. We already know some things from previous research (and if you know of any interesting statistics, please list them along with the source). Others we will need to find out by doing a class survey. Please add whatever you want to know or present.