Group+C+(Wikipedia+as+an+Educational+Resource)+-+Brett,+Kim,+Steve

[[image:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Wikibabel.png width="495" height="373" align="right" caption="Brueghel's Tower of Babel with the Wikipedia logo"]]
//Wikipedia,// the online version of an encyclopedia, provides the Internet world with numerous articles about almost any topic one could imagine. Chris O'Neal [|points out] that Wikipedia use in the classroom is still relatively new; and while teachers use it themselves, many express reticence having their students use it. Wikipedia. It's good. It's bad. It's debatable.

**Pros and Cons of Wikipedia**
There are many facets to be aware of when considering the use of Wikipedia as an educational resource. Some of the majors pros and cons are listed below:

Pros:
> If you see something wrong, anyone is free to hop on and make a correction. > Wikipedia provides a nice overview on all of the main points of a topic as well as gives an idea of where to go next. This is especially true of articles that provide citations, as you can then move on to these sources, accessing information that may not have appeared on Wikipedia itself.
 * It's huge.
 * It's free of charge.
 * It's current.
 * It can be freely edited. (also a Con! See below.)
 * Misinformation is usually disposed of quickly by Wikipedia's editing community.
 * It's an excellent springboard for research.
 * It's easy to use.
 * It's always accessible. (as long as you have an Internet connection)
 * It is a [|multilingual] site that allows information to be obtained in various languages,

Cons:
> Because it can be edited by anyone, the uninformed and generally mischievous can hop on and type in whatever they want. > Nobody will take you seriously if all your info comes from a place that anybody, be they scholars or not, may contribute. > Some topics have developed huge communities of dedicated editors who will keep topics on the ball. Others, though, aren't so lucky, and may sit with incorrect information for months on end. > If you've relied on Wikipedia exclusively for years, what will you do when somebody asks you to write something - but forbids the use of Wikipedia? Will you know how to do the necessary research? > Seems to be an unquestioned confidence that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information.
 * It can be freely edited. (Also a Pro! See above.)
 * Incorrect information can and does exist on Wikipedia. And while the editing community does a superb job of tending to errors, somebody somewhere is going to read the false information before it is corrected.
 * It's not //considered// a reliable source of information.
 * Editing is inconsistent.
 * Wikipedia stunts researching skills.
 * No independent and credible verification of the information made publicly available.

**Classroom Use of Wikipedia:**
So what does a classroom look like that supports and/or uses Wikipedia? There's no one way to use Wikipedia, but these points may help you understand how some others are using it in their own classrooms:


 * Some educators use Wiki writing, where students and teachers can collectively collaborate and share information on a common thread.
 * Courtesy of Vicki Davis (Who is [|she]?):
 * __Lesson Summaries__- have students write about what they have learned in the lesson
 * __Collaboration of Notes__- students can check answers with one another or help one another
 * __Concept Introduction and Exploratory Projects__- Pick at students brains at the begining of a unit
 * __Dissemination of Important Classroom Learning Beyond the Classroom__- explain how it will relate to their lives outside of school
 * __Individual Assessment Projects__- self explanatory
 * Please review the 'Classroom Uses of Wikipedia' breakout page for further suggestions on using Wikipedia in the classroom.


 * 1) [].
 * 2) []