I think it is a common problem. Italian students use to search articles
and information on the web, without taking care of the releability of
sources, as well. May be that's a structural limit of the medium,
internet, that is tipically non-hierachical and anarchical. But i think
that the benefits of the medium (this mailing list is an axample!) are
more important that the risks. I agree with you, any way, people should
be educated to use internet (and generally all information sources...)
critically. May be, that's the point.
All the best
fabrizio
Dr
Fabrizio Maimone
Professore a contratto di comunicazione organizzativa
LUMSA University of Rome
www.lumsa.it
fabrizio.maimone@tin.it
Are you
interested in topics related to learning and knowing in the workplace?
Please, visit lkw's blog at
http://blog.virgilio.it/lkw .
----
Messaggio originale----
Da:
jring@AMUG.ORG
Data: 9-dic-2005 7.56 PM
A:
<
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Ogg: Re: Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia is
not a reliable information source
It is equally lamentable that anyone
would defame the Wikipedia, thus all
those who have sought to make it
a fount of information. The electronic
form of book burning does not
help the citizen as much as does educing
critical thinking.
Jack Ring
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.P.Fenton-OCreevy" <M.P.Fenton-
Ocreevy@open.ac.uk>
To: <
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Friday,
December 09, 2005 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia
is not a reliable information
source
> Ken,
>
> I agree with you
that Wikipedia has errors and inaccuaracies. I agree it
> is
lamentable if someone is defamed in any forum. However, I disagree
with
> you about the value of Wikipedia as a reference source.
>
>
First, Wikipedia does carry a great deal of good quality articles and
> information. I have made a point of reviewing articles in my own
areas of
> expertise and have found much that is of a high standard.
This has
> encouraged me to contribute articles and to get involved in
editing
> others.
>
> Yes but . . . I suspect you may say --- how do
we expect students to
> distinguish good quality information from
poor quality information?
>
> In my view here lies a wonderful
educational opportunity. Actually we
> would like our students to
develop the critical facility to question and
> interogate the value
and quality of all sources, even those provided by
> their professors.
The trouble is that when we provide them with
> information sources
whose quality we warrant, the temptation is to treat
> those sources
uncritically. Information sources such as Wikipedia require
> them to
excercise discretion in interpretation and it is easy to highlight
>
the need - the article you cite would be one way. After all, the
process
> by which Wikipedia is compiled is transparent to them.
Incidentlly, an
> important source of variation in Wikipedia articles
is the quality of
> referencing. This is one starting point for
assessing quality; there are
> others.
>
> How about a project which
is focussed on critiquing and improving the
> quality of a Wikipedia
entry?
>
> Having honed their critical skills on Wikipedia, perhaps we
could
> encourage them to apply these skills to their textbooks?
>
>
best regards
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Fenton-O'Creevy
> Professor of
Organisational Behaviour
> Open University
>
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
on behalf of Ken
> Friedman
> Sent: Sun 04/12/2005 16:37
> To: MG-ED-
DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Cc:
> Subject: Wikipedia warning -- Wikipedia is
not a reliable information
> source
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> This
letter is a suggestion that you address the problem of bad
>
information in student papers from an increasingly poor source:
>
Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not getting better. It is getting worse. One
>
reason for this is the apparent case that the status of Wikipedia as
>
a much-used reference resource makes it the target of opportunity for
>
hoax efforts that would never enter an edited reference text.
>
> There
are now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory
> information
in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a
> reference
source in universities and university-level professional
> schools. The
same is true of inaccurate or false assertions in many
> articles.
>
>
The problem with Wikipedia is not that the Wiki system MAY develop a
>
solid and reliable reference work, but that in the current form, it
>
DOES NOT. It is as easy to change an article for the worse as for the
>
better.
>
> Nearly any university student today has access to a decent
library
> and good on-line reference texts. In addition, anyone willing
to
> search a bit will also fine outstanding SIGNED references sources
by
> major scholars in many fields, as well as useful albeit older
>
versions of respected references source no longer covered by
>
copyright.
>
> The article posted to Humanist by Norman Hinton (below)
and similar
> recent cases lead me to conclude that Wikipedia has no
way to prevent
> problems like this from happening. This is made worse
by the fact
> that Wikipedia is an automatic flow-through resource for
other
> on-line sources.
>
> Wikipedia is unacceptable as a research
tool.
>
> I have informed my students that they may no longer use
Wikipedia as
> a reference or source on papers in my courses. I urge
you to consider
> a similar statement.
>
> Use of Wikipedia by students
and researchers is an important
> validation mechanism for Wikipedia.
>
> If enough of us prohibit Wikipedia as a reference source in our
>
courses, programs, and schools, the message will eventually get
>
through.
>
> When it does, Wikipedia will find an appropriate way to
monitor
> contributions. If they do not, the reputation of Wikipedia
will sink
> to that of another crank web site.
>
> Ken Friedman
>
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
> Institute for
Communication, Culture, and Language
> Norwegian School of Management
>
> Design Research Center
> Denmark's Design School
>
> email: ken.
friedman@bi.no
>
>
>
> --
>
> Letter to my students on 051203:
>
>
Friends,
>
> Please DO NOT use Wikipedia as a reference source in your
semester
> project. You have a free on-line subscription to
Encyclopedia
> Britannica through the Norwegian School of Management
library, and
> you have access to many other excellent reference tools.
>
> Wikipedia is not reliable. The story below is an example. There is
> now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in
>
Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference
>
source in universities and university-level professional schools. The
>
same is true of inaccurate or false assertions in many articles.
>
>
The problem with Wikipedia is not that the Wiki system MAY develop a
>
solid and reliable reference work, but that in the current form, it
>
DOES NOT. It is as easy to change an article for the worse as for the
>
better.
>
> You have access through our library access to many good on-
line
> reference texts. In addition, anyone willing to search a bit
will
> also fine outstanding SIGNED references sources by major
scholars in
> many fields, as well
> as useful albeit older versions of
respected references source no
> longer covered by copyright.
>
> The
article posted to Humanist by Norman Hinton and recent cases --
>
including one concerning Jens Stoltenberg that I discussed in class
>
-- leads me to conclude that Wikipedia has no way to prevent this
>
from happening.
>
> If you use Wikipedia, you MUST check at least one
or two RELIABLE
> sources for the same information. Once you use a
reliable source, you
> can use it directly instead of relying on
Wikipedia.
>
> Please do NOT use Wikipedia. Choosing reliable sources
and checking
> information is one of the criteria for grading the
semesteroppgave.
> This is not a sudden warning. It is a reminder. If
you are STILL
> using Wikipedia, please remember that I specifically
brought this up
> in three lectures, the first when I return the
biographies, the
> second when I gave a talk on how to write a good
paper, the third in
> the session on writing your semester project. If
you are still using
> Wikipedia, this is a good time to find the same
information from a
> better source. If you cannot find it in another
source, that should
> cause you to question the information.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> From:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 19, No. 474.
>
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
>
> www.
kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
>
>
www.princeton.edu/humanist/
>
>
--snip--
>
> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:07:03 +0000
> From: Norman
Hinton <
hinton@springnet1.com>
> Subject: [Fwd: No wonder some people
are skeptical about Wikipedia!]
>
> Untrustworthy Wikipedia again:
>
>
A false Wikipedia 'biography'
>
> By John Seigenthaler
>
> USA Today
(at Yahoo News), Wed Nov 30, 6:50 AM ET
>
> "John Seigenthaler Sr. was
the assistant to Attorney General Robert
> Kennedy in the early 1960's.
For a brief time, he was thought to have
> been directly involved in
the Kennedy assassinations of both John,
> and his brother, Bobby.
Nothing was ever proven." - Wikipedia
>
> This is a highly personal
story about Internet character
> assassination. It could be your story.
>
> I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious
>
"biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia,
>
the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and
>
virtually untraceable. There was more:
>
> "John Seigenthaler moved to
the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to
> the United States in 1984,"
Wikipedia said. "He started one of the
> country's largest public
relations firms shortly thereafter."
>
> At age 78, I thought I was
beyond surprise or hurt at anything
> negative said about me. I was
wrong. One sentence in the biography
> was true. I was Robert Kennedy's
administrative assistant in the
> early 1960s. I also was his
pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my
> son, John Seigenthaler,
journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say
> he found the same
scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com.
>
> I had heard for
weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about
> "the wonderful
world of Wikipedia," where millions of people
> worldwide visit daily
for quick reference "facts," composed and
> posted by people with no
special expertise or knowledge - and
> sometimes by people with malice.
>
> At my request, executives of the three websites now have removed
the
> false content about me. But they don't know, and can't find out,
who
> wrote the toxic sentences.
>
> Anonymous author
>
> I phoned
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have
> any way
to know who wrote that?"
>
> "No, we don't," he said. Representatives
of the other two websites
> said their computers are programmed to copy
data verbatim from
> Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or
factual.
>
> Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am
interested in
> letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and
irresponsible
> research tool.
>
> But searching cyberspace for the
identity of people who post spurious
> information can be frustrating.
I found on Wikipedia the registered
> IP (Internet Protocol) number of
my "biographer"- 65-81-97-208. I
> traced it to a customer of BellSouth
Internet. That company
> advertises a phone number to report "Abuse
Issues." An electronic
> voice said all complaints must be e-mailed. My
two e-mails were
> answered by identical form letters, advising me that
the company
> would conduct an investigation but might not tell me the
results. It
> was signed "Abuse Team."
>
> Wales, Wikipedia's founder,
told me that BellSouth would not be
> helpful. "We have trouble with
people posting abusive things over and
> over and over," he said. "We
block their IP numbers, and they sneak
> in another way. So we contact
the service providers, and they are not
> very responsive."
>
> After
three weeks, hearing nothing further about the Abuse Team
>
investigation, I phoned BellSouth's Atlanta corporate headquarters,
>
which led to conversations between my lawyer and BellSouth's counsel.
>
My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a
>
"John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer." Major
>
communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws
>
that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame
>
online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would
>
BellSouth give up the name.
>
> Little legal recourse
>
> Federal law
also protects online corporations - BellSouth, AOL, MCI
> Wikipedia,
etc. - from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the
> Communications Decency
Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that
> "no provider or user of
an interactive computer service shall be
> treated as the publisher or
speaker." That legalese means that,
> unlike print and broadcast
companies, online service providers cannot
> be sued for disseminating
defamatory attacks on citizens posted by
> others.
>
> Recent low-
profile court decisions document that Congress effectively
> has barred
defamation in cyberspace. Wikipedia's website acknowledges
> that it is
not responsible for inaccurate information, but Wales, in
> a recent C-
Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website
> is
accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer
> editors
(he said he has only one paid employee) corrects mistakes
> within
minutes.
>
> My experience refutes that. My "biography" was posted May
26. On May
> 29, one of Wales' volunteers "edited" it only by
correcting the
> misspelling of the word "early." For four months,
Wikipedia depicted
> me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it
from his website's
> history Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on Answers.
com and
> Reference.com for three more weeks.
>
> In the C-Span
interview, Wales said Wikipedia has "millions" of daily
> global
visitors and is one of the world's busiest websites. His
> volunteer
community runs the Wikipedia operation, he said. He funds
> his website
through a non-profit foundation and estimated a 2006
> budget of "about
a million dollars."
>
> And so we live in a universe of new media with
phenomenal
> opportunities for worldwide communications and research -
but
> populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.
Congress
> has enabled them and protects them.
>
> When I was a child,
my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip."
> She held a feather
pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the
> feathers will fly to the
four winds, and I could never get them back
> in the pillow. That's how
it is when you spread mean things about
> people."
>
> For me, that
pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.
>
> John Seigenthaler, a retired
journalist, founded The Freedom Forum
> First Amendment Center at
Vanderbilt University. He also is a former
> editorial page editor at
USA TODAY.
>
> --snip--
>
>
>
>