Using Wikipedia in the classroom

Hello,

I am a student teacher carrying out a small research project on the use of Wikipedia and classroom learning. Essentially I get the pupils to explain topics from their Graphic Communication course with their information being uploaded to the Wikipedia website. I was looking for any information to the following questions. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

In which type of class was Wikipedia used (i.e. English, maths etc)?

In what way were the pupils using the web site? (For example were they carrying out classroom research, editing information or adding information to Wikipedia?)

How accurate / useful did the pupils find the information?

Did the use of Wikipedia provide a positive outcome to the lesson or series of lessons? (Were the pupils well motivated? Did they feel a sense of pride that their information was online for all to see?)

[KatieBee]

Using interactive media with user generated content can be a great experiement, I would just caution you that b/c anyone can update Wikipedia it might not always pull up the most reliable or balanced information. There have been some public battles over companies and political campaigns messing with defintiions for others on Wikipedia. Good luck, it sounds like a GREAT project though!

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anybody may post anything. My school does not allow it as a citation resource.

[KatieBee]

I agree as I said earlier, though it might be an intersting lesson in not believing everything you read on the internet!

Wikipedia has been banned from my class because of some of the incredibly inaccurate information found there. At first I thought it would be a great resource, but when a French student asked me about the info on Napoleon that he'd gotten from Wikipedia- Mon dieu! C'est terrible! Consquently, I have not allowed my students to use it as a source. It is too bad that people have made what could have been a wonderful resource into a garbage pit!

Banned from schools???? More proof schools are becoming outdated. They just don't get it...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anybody may post anything. My school does not allow it as a citation resource.

Uh, FYI, everybody can make a website if they want to. And you allow those?

The Scientist, Feb 2006 v20 i2 p18(2)

Nature has Wikipedia in its cites. Stuart Blackman.

"Nature has long been linking to Wikipedia--"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"--from its online news stories. On Aug. 25, 2005, Nature cited the Web site in a print editorial. So there was perhaps a collective sigh of relief in the journal's offices when an in-house investigation, published on December 15, found that the site's scientific content is not much less trustworthy than that found in tried-and-tested print encyclopedias. "

Saying that wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it is just plain wrong. I would suggest please doing your research first before contributing with something that is mere opinion. I believe wikipedia to be a perfectly good source, although it helps to teach the students to recognize fraudulent information and to do cross referencing no matter what sources they use.

I simply couldn't let this go without a comment. I teach 9th grade science and while I've instructed my students on how to cross-reference and check reliability, I find it disheartening when the student actually cites his source and then tells me something as ludicrous as "Sodium is a Noble Gas."

I have simply instructed my students that wikipedia, while fine for gathering basic information can NOT be used as your cited source for information. I know they try to go over what people have written, but the technical stuff I just can't trust them to be accurate.

To be fair, my students also have to use educational and governmental sites rather than some kid's term paper from 8th grade English in Hoola Hoola, Pennsyltucky.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The Scientist, Feb 2006 v20 i2 p18(2)

Nature has Wikipedia in its cites. Stuart Blackman.

"Nature has long been linking to Wikipedia--"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"--from its online news stories. On Aug. 25, 2005, Nature cited the Web site in a print editorial. So there was perhaps a collective sigh of relief in the journal's offices when an in-house investigation, published on December 15, found that the site's scientific content is not much less trustworthy than that found in tried-and-tested print encyclopedias. "

Saying that wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it is just plain wrong. I would suggest please doing your research first before contributing with something that is mere opinion. I believe wikipedia to be a perfectly good source, although it helps to teach the students to recognize fraudulent information and to do cross referencing no matter what sources they use.

just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it reliable. You can put political spins on wikipedia, add a "NOT" in places that change the meanings of stuff and it's hard to catch that. I personally, have gone on to wikipedia and done stuff like that just to show I can to help discredit it's legitamacy.