Point/Counterpoint: Are Wikis Worth the Time? By Dean Shareski and Carol Ann K. Winkler.
To help decide which side I agree with in this debate, I took Wikipedia for a trial run by researching three topics: a topic I am knowledgeable about, a topic of interest I know little about, and a topic I could imagine teaching someday.
The Giant Panda is a topic I am knowledgeable about because I have written reports on this endangered species a few times in elementary school and middle school. It also happens to be my favorite animal and I had a postcard by my computer with a panda on it so when I was trying to think about a topic I could look up on Wikipedia, pandas sounded like a good idea. The article in Wikipedia on the Giant Panda has extensive information. It starts off with general information and branches out. I found information about how pandas were considered extraordinary creatures, how they became a target for poachers, a list of the pandas in zoos, and what is being done for their conservation. Something I thought was interesting in the article is someone chose to write about pandas in popular culture. I don’t think it has ever crossed my mind how often pandas are used as symbols for companies, cartoon characters, or used as part of a storyline in a movie.
A topic I am interested in and that I would like to learn more about is American Sign Language (ASL). I found out that some people in the EDUC 422 class have studied this language from the introductions we posted in the discussion board. I think it is amazing when people are able to learn and communicate in another language. The article in Wikipedia gave a quick definition of ASL, listed the areas ASL is used, and the history. There is also information about teaching sign language to babies and primates.
Art is a subject that I could see myself teaching to a class of elementary school students. Links to certain school subjects are at the top of the opening page for the website so I clicked on the link at the top of the page and read up on how “art” is defined on Wikipedia. The article is well written and provides information that I would not have come up with if I were to explain what “art” is to my future class. The article not only includes a definition of what “art” is it also gives some information about the history and the many different types of art.
I am going to have to agree that Wikipedia is useful. Since this is an encyclopedia created by the public, some precautions should be taken. Wikipedia does not hide that it is created by the public. It posts that fact on the website. Therefore, people who decide to use this as a source should be aware that there may be mistakes. Like any sources you use, it is important to try to double check the information especially if it is from the internet. There were a few things I noticed on Wikipedia that I found helpful. There are many hyperlinks, practically on very single line of the article, in case further explanation is needed for a particular word. I like this because it makes it easy to clarify something you are uncertain about. Links for related topics are placed at the end of the article. I find this beneficial because it could lead to something more specific that I could use or it could spark an interest in something else. I like that references were listed at the bottom of the page because it gives the article more credibility. I also like the pictures and videos put on the side of the article because if you are curious about what something may look like or if you don’t quite understand the description given, visual aides can help clarify. Visual aides always make an article more enjoyable too. The impression I got from Wikipedia is that it is a good starting point for research. I don’t think it is necessary to disregard this as a source completely.