Tama’s eLearning Blog

Sometimes I find it hard to get the time to explain certain concepts - RSS, for example - which both have enough information and avoid boring to death those who already know things. Thankfully, those folk over at CommonCraft do really, really good introductory explanations of Web2.0-type tools. Here’s their take on social bookmarking:

After that you’ll also want to check out RSS in Plain English; Wikis in Plain English; Google Docs in Plain English; and Social Networking in Plain English. Watch the show for future useful episodes. I’m sure these clips will find some use in my teaching!

With all the furor and debate over Wikipedia recently, there’s an excellent opportunity to discuss what it can do well, what it can’t, and how we should approach using Wikipedia. Coversations should be happening. The least useful, most pathetic and childish response is WikipediaClassAction.org who are trying to organise disgruntled people who are unhappy with their entries to sue the Wikipedia Foundation. That achieves nothing and is a sad indication of a culture more inclined to sue than to think. In happier news, the BBC noted an analysis by Nature comparing Wikipedia and Britannica, finding:

However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule. The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. [...] Yet Nature’s investigation suggests that Britannica’s advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries. In the study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature’s news team. Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.

Nature’s mature approach, to investigate and suggest ways of improving Wikipedia is the sensible path. Childish court action against primarily a collection of volunteers is not.

Update: Both Futureman and Leigh Blackall of Teach & Learn Online have had very rude responses from the Wikipedia Class Action website to the extent that I’m wondering if it’s actually some sort of spoof or hoax?

Update 2: Danah Boyd’s thoughts on the Wikipedia debates are spot on:

I am worried about how academics are treating Wikipedia and i think that it comes from a point of naivety. Wikipedia should never be the sole source for information. It will never have the depth of original sources. It will also always contain bias because society is inherently biased, although its efforts towards neutrality are commendable. These are just realizations we must acknowledge and support. But what it does have is a huge repository of information that is the most accessible for most people. Most of the information is more accurate than found in a typical encyclopedia and yet, we value encyclopedias as a initial point of information gathering. It is also more updated, more inclusive and more in-depth. Plus, it’s searchable and in the hands of everyone with digital access (a much larger population than those with encyclopedias in their homes). It also exists in hundreds of languages and is available to populations who can’t even imagine what a library looks like. Yes, it is open. This means that people can contribute what they do know and that others who know something about that area will try to improve it. Over time, articles with a lot of attention begin to be inclusive and approximating neutral. The more people who contribute, the stronger and more valuable the resource. Boycotting Wikipedia doesn’t make it go away, but it doesn’t make it any better either.

I’m in the middle of revising my doctoral thesis for submission and found over 200 edublog posts waiting for my eyes via Bloglines today, so here’s the three that caught my eye… 

[X] Wired News’ Podcast Chaos Be Gone article points to internal podcast search engines (both a bot touchy and in beta):PodZinger and BlinkX.

[X] EduGadget has a sizable post evangelising the easy-to-use education friendly PBWiki.

[X] Help Us to Get BETT has a great article on Blogs as a means of student self-evaluation in high schools. A little out of my field, but an interesting read.

While I think the Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, I’m often skeptical about it’s day-to-day reliability. In most cases when students ask, I suggest they use it as a starting point but try to find other sources and references (which, luckily, most Wikipedia articles tend to link to). “Podcasting“, though is a tougher question because the Wikipedia defintion is almost always cited as the definition (something that only really happens with digital culture stuff). That said, the current debates over who did what to start podcasting, when they did it, and what the Wikipedia says, are extremely relevant in seeing how well the Wikipedia can cope as a communally authored social lexicon.

Meanwhile, the Pod/Cast/War rundown …
Adam Curry’s been outed editing the Wikipedia, but anonymously, removing key aspects of podcasting’s history which lessen his role.

Meanwhile, Dave Winer and Adam Curry are once again at each other’s blogging throats. Adam seems to have tried to brush it off, but that’s not something Dave usually lets happen!

To kick things up a notch, the mainstream news is taking an interest and Adam Curry is looking a little less saintly. Meanwhile, Dave notes that there has been a serious attempt to lock down who did what when in the origins of podcasting:

Adam Green did a podcast of the story of podcasting by splicing together podcasts from Adam Curry, Dave Slusher and myself. Very interesting way to tell a story. Permanent link to this item in the archive.

I think listening to that might clarify things a little … I’m off to download it in a minute.

In the Gadget sphere, Richard Giles is less than impressed by Curry’s antics …

In a more recent blog post, Adam had this to say, “I apologize to Kevin Marks for my history of removing this fact on WikiPedia. I really believed this was untrue”.

In August, before I submitted my chapter, I had Adam Curry proof read for accuracy (Dave Winer ignored any requests for his input). Adam replied “Looks great, reads well, is accurate.” So why does he claim that he thought the above statement was incorrect. This seems to suggest that he either ignored what I’d written, didn’t read it properly, or did know about Kevin because I bloody well wrote about it in the chapter he proofread.

I’d say something trite like, ‘history will decide’, but the whole point is, it won’t. The Wikipedia is the closest thing we have to a living historical entity and all these pod wars highlight is how integral debate is in trying to keep it healthy.

[Cross-posted from my personal blog, Ponderance.] 

I’ve been thinking about Wikis for a while now, but still haven’t had the time to get a server set up and install my own to test. However, I’ve recently discovered some of the many free wiki implimentations online so I thought I’d test out the service at the WikiSpaces Community.

So far it’s been a breeze to set-up. Now, lets see who comes across my new Wiki … the Education 2.0 Wiki (which, as yet, has almost no content but YOU can fix that!). Here’s what it’s about:

Welcome to the very much in-progress, in beta, test space for a Wiki relating to Education, eLearning and the various social developments of the “next generation” online tools and services which are collectively known as “Web 2.0″. I’m hoping this Wiki will be a space, for starters, to build some working definitions of “Edu 2.0″ - that is, flexible learning and eLearning from the perspective of Web 2.0 friendly users.

I fear I won’t really get to do much with it until January 2006 (must finish writing docotral thesis in the next month), but feel free to visit and make changes yourself!