Weighing in on Wikipedia

As a high school teacher-librarian, teachers often ask me to give "the research talk" to their students at the start of a class project. They often add, at the end of this request, that I should "tell the kids about Wikipedia." By this, of course, most of them mean "tell the kids to not use Wikipedia." Some want it to be forbidden or ignored.

My research talk includes Wikipedia: it is often a valuable starting point for understanding, and often contains valuable references to primary information sources that it may have taken me longer to find in another way. Would I advise students to use a Wikipedia article itself as an authoritative source in academic research? Likely not. Would I tell them to not use the Wikipedia site at all? No.

Pat Jermy's short article, Weighing in on Wikipedia, is a good reminder of the basics regarding Web 2.0 research: check sources for bias and authority, be aware of editing threads and process, track down information origin, etc.

Bearing these basics in mind, I think that kids should actually be encouraged to use Wikipedia in school in order to develop and hone these crucial Web 2.0 skills. Teaching, instead of forbidding or ignoring, is what we're supposed to be all about...

"Bonded Design"

In reading Andrew Large's "Finding Information on the Web -- Children as Portal Users and Designers," I was struck by the idea of "bonded design" for internet portal creation. Large asserts that a two-way dialogue between the students for whom the portals were being designed and the designers themselves was essential in developing an easily usable and well used end-product.

While "stakeholder input" is often sought at the outset of a web-based project, it is the continuous bond between user and designer, throughout the design process, that ultimately led to success in this case.

I see this as a (literally) wise project development strategy, but also as metaphor for the potential for Web 2.0 in education: if continual collaboration and real-time consultation are available to today's students via Web 2.0, then the development of their educational projects can only benefit. Here's to social media making for better educational outcomes!

Social Media Webinar Recording

Today I hosted a short 15 minute webinar on educational uses of some web 2.0 applications; thanks to those who could attend. The full session recording is available here, for those who were interested but couldn't join in live.

On-line Reputation Management

Here's another good reason Web 2.0 needs to be taught to students today: on-line reputation management. As Will Richardson and others have often argued, kids need to know that what they do online leaves a permanent footprint that will follow them into their adult lives.

As teachers, we often assume that today's students are social software saavy: they all know how to Facebook and MSN, right? What they may not know, however, it just how permanent each casual LOL and WTF really are.

If we, as teachers, are to help students best prepare for their futures, then we cannot ignore student interactions with social media, or assume that they know it all and can manage it on their own. We must teach online reputation management so that todays kids have the best chance for success in tomorrow's world.

Digital Humanities and Web 2.0

The study of "Humanities" has been around for some time, but with the advent of computers and the Internet,the field of Digital Humanities has evolved. In their article on Defining Digital Humanities, Davies & Osborne assert that collaboration and "thinking through making" are essential elements of the field. They point out, that "the revolution of text is changing how we access, interpret, and use literary and research materials," and that "digital humanities increase the potential of possibilities for our lives and our relationships with ideas, language, and each other."

It sounds to me like the functions and benefits of Web 2.0 align pretty solidly with those of Digital Humanities. It will be interesting to see if the development of this relatively new discipline ultimately parallels, overlaps, or meshes with the development of Web 2.0 tools and functionality. The development of the study of Digital Humanities re-enforces the importance of the productive human qualities of collaboration and thinking through making: all Web 2.0 qualities as well.

Careful about assumptions!

I often hear teachers talk about the "kids today" and how computer savvy they are; it seems like whenever there's a teacher that needs some tech. assistance, there's a capable student willing to help. In my experience, however, there are just as many kids incapable of performing what might now be considered basic computer skills, and when you narrow the field to capable Web 2.0 students, the numbers drop again.

I think that teachers group all students as capable for a couple of reasons: the idea that there's always a student who can help might lead to the assumption that all students can help; teachers make assumptions about the ubiquitous technological capacities of students based on a small -- and willing -- sample set. The assumption that all students have glowing computer skills also lets teachers off the hook: "I don't need to teach them anything about computers: they know it all."

While it's fair to say that most students are capable of setting up a Facebook account and doing a Google search, I think that we need to take responsibility, as teachers, for expanding and refining the Web 2.0 skill sets that will lead these kids to successful futures.

More studies, such as the revealing, recent PEW Survey, may help us to get a handle on just what Web 2.0 tools most kids use and don't use, and thus let us make better choices -- and fewer assumptions -- about what we need to teach and what we don't.

Facebook and Democracy

In his 1986 essay "Ultimate Discourse," E.L. Doctorow asserts that "fiction is democratic, it reasserts the authority of the single mind to make and remake the world." These days, one could replace the word "fiction" with "Web 2.0" and still have a statement just as true.

One of the many great things about the 2-way nature of Web 2.0 is that it is democratic: it gives voice to individuals, and, if a lot of individuals voice the same thing, their collective voices can bring about real-world change.

In his article "Facebook and Democracy," Shilo Davis writes about the Canadian public's online response to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent prorogation of parliament, but in both the article's title and content there is a larger issue implied.

The "Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament" Facebook group has over 200,000 members -- the biggest Facebook group in Cananda, and, as Davis points out, is "the quickest large-scale grassroots political mobilization in Canadian history."

Despite this, some may give less credit to a Facebook group than a pen-and-paper petition. They shouldn't. The CAPP has allowed diverse people in diverse places the ability to coordinate offline events: there are upcoming rallies planned for more than 50 cities and towns. No paper petition -- or one-way Web 1.0 e-mail campaign for that matter -- could ever have coordinated this result this quickly, and without any cost (well, it might cost the Harper government in the end...).

While critics may call social networking for change "slacktivism," there's no denying that Facebook and other Web 2.0 tools allow for the public airing of an individual's (or group's) private thoughts, and that real change may happen as a result. Not a bad definition of democracy, huh?