Wikiality and the Cost of Books

When the Media Center director for my previous middle school opened her presentation on internet research she prefaced the Power point presentation with a note "No Wikipedia - You Cannot Trust the Information" I had heard o Wikipedia, but never used it and assumed that it was like Encarta or Britannica online.  I did not realize that anyone could contribute and edit information in Wikipedia.  It would seem that a formal process of submission including references should be required before any information is changed. 

Young students assume that the first reference sources that are listed when a search is performed will yield the most trustworthy information.  Wikipedia pops out at you usually within the first three search results on Google, Yahoo, Ask and so on.  The caption "Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopedia" suggests that this is a totally legitimate source of information.

I understand the appeal of wikipedia as an open source of information, but I see danger in lack of safeguards against tampering with information.  There is an overview that explains how the site works, but no eye-catching warning as one enters the site.  A young student is not going to take the time to wade the process information and disclaimers. As one test for my EDU 590 class, I modified information on the article on Blood Diamonds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood%20diamond, changing the first line of the paragraph under Angola; making it a colony of Spain vice Portugal.  The change was effected at 11:16 and the correction back to Portugal and the message to me stating that I had entered erroneous information came at 11:21.  I was impressed by the speed in which the system had recognized the error and felt there was more of a fail-safe system than I thought. 

On a second try, I changed information on my favorite football team, the Oakland Raiders. I changed the first line under the heading  1963-1966 to read: "After the 1968 season, F. Wayne Valley hired Al Davis, a former assistant coach for the Denver Broncos, as head coach and general manager.  The original read: "After the 1962 season...a former assistant coach for the San Diego Chargers... "As I type this post, it has been almost four hours and the information is still false.  I guess certain types of information may trigger suspicion faster than others.  Even though the error recognition and correction were fast on the Blood Diamond article, there was no doubt a space of time, a minute or so, when someone could have gathered the wrong information. Colbert's video on Wikiality speaks comically of the consensus that essentially makes a lie come true. This is dangerous in that persons with similar agendas may agree on a falsehood to give it the appearance of truth.

 The New York Times article "$200 Textbook vs. Free. You Do the Math" touches upon a very important issue that affects students across the spectrum; the cost of  textbooks and questions regarding the need for them.   I agree with the premise that modern students do not need all the textbooks that they buy or that are bought for them.  I am a very large athletic guy, with very strong arms and back. I picked my daughter up from school during her first week and she had all her books in her bag.  I reached to take the bag to the car for her and lost my balance trying to pick the books up.  I later found that the condensed workbooks for her science and social studies books were a tenth the size and weight and contained all the important testable information.  I found further that the book websites had online versions of the book that only required the access code from the teacher's edition.  I have found that a class set for books suffices for the entire year as long as a versatile resource kit is provided in hard copy or online.  The average book for my classes cost $60 dollars and they stayed in lockers or at home most of the time.  If you search any school in America, you will probably find a book locker with a series of editions of the same subject books that date back for at least five years.  There is very little change or update in the newer editions and the publishers change almost every year. In the budget crunch of today, someone must rethink allowing the publishing company lobbyists to keep selling books we don't need at prices that are ridiculous.

.

The "$200 Textbook..." article and the free access to books proposed therein is also closely linked to Wikipedia since that site has added free literature access through its Wikibooks and Wikisource projects.  Though the encyclopedia portion of Wikipedia is flawed in it's vulnerability to altered information, it remains popular and has support from studies with results that fall in its favor. For instance a CNET News article http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html  titled "Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica" has a header which reads: "Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature." 

The ease by which I altered information will keep me from using the Wikipedia as a trusted reference, but I will measure its literature offerings against my Anthology of American Authors and form my own verdict on it Wikibooks and Wikisource extensions. A site like Wikipedia is too viable a source as a community sharing tool to be totally disregarded. The site is here to stay and the safeguards will probably improve. Besides, what serious researcher accepts facts without cross-referencing information and statistics?