I was so pissed off. Not because I though this was a bad idea, but because Star Wars was going to be one of potential “texts”. I would have been looking at straight A’s all the way, and some study that I might actually enjoy.
I’m having a similar moment here now. According to the SMH, as of next year, HSC students will be able to study Wikipedia. It will be one of the possible “texts” in an elective known as “The Global Village”, which studies how global communities interact with eachother.
The aim of the course is not only to study the dynamic nature of the online encyclopedia, but also to give students a greater understanding of the potential for misinformation on the web.
It’s a great step forward in legitimising the online medium as a respectable source of information. The next step, hopefully, will be adding Gizmodo to the curriculum, with lively debates on why we’re fantastic replacing all religious education classes. Well, we can dream, can’t we?
But I wonder how long it will be before the entire course ends up on Wikipedia itself, along with tests and test answers? When that happens, it will be the official point where the argument over Wikipedia’s legitimacy ends.
[SMH]
NekoNeko
May 26, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I wonder what the students will do when their assigned study material (let’s say McDonald’s) is edited by an incredibly studious individual who seems to think that “MCDONALDZ SUXZ DONKIE BALLZ!!! P3NIS P3NIS P3NIS!!111!”
The whole point to the lack of legitimacy with Wikipedia is that you have people who can come in & do stuff like this.
Report Permalinkzacislost
May 26, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Wikipedia is accurate
(citation needed)
http://www.bustedtees.com/Wikipedia
=P
Report PermalinkHonisoitquimalypants
May 27, 2008 at 12:53 PM
That’s Donkie Ballz, Nekoneko. Obscenities posted to Wikipedia have no more relevance to its legitimacy than obscene graffiti scrawled on pages of the encyclopedia at the local library have to the Britannica’s, which unlike Wikipedia, doesn’t have an ‘Undo’ button If you can’t tell the difference between a vandalised and a non-vandalised Wikipedia article, I would like to introduce you to a Nigerian prince who needs to get some money out of his country. The “whole point to the legitimacy” or otherwise of Wikipedia is quite different to what you state. Firstly you can discover, through the history, talk and usertalk pages, the little online community that wrote each article: many of them are more knowledgeable and better writers than the teachers and academics who write textbooks (and whom I publish for a living). Secondly, there are the references, or lack of them in an article. Wikipedia provides excellent lessons for students: it teaches them scepticism, discrimination, and to look at sources.
Report Permalink