Wikipedia allows for postings and editing’s from the general public. All editors are susceptible to sanctions. There are rules that have to be followed. If an editor does not follow the rules they can be “punished” which can even result in blocking them.
The discussion on the consensus on warming and on causation tells me that there is some scientific documentation that we have caused, at least in part, global warming and that there is such a thing as global warming.
I get the sense that Uncle Ed is resentful of the fact that he was pushed out of his Wikipedia “duties”. He seems to be pretty negative about Wikipedia now that he is not so involved. I would guess that Ed is a conservative. It’s hard to get a feel from the conversations but he talks about women, blacks and racism, government aid programs and poverty. When he talks about these things it’s not like “oh, I’m so anxious to get out there and help with the problems”. It seems like he’s a little down on them. He appears to believe in global warming but based on the discussion about the temperature increase or the cause, he wonders how much of the consensus is based on how much of the global warming humans are actually causing.
I think that Stephen Schulz is probably more liberal. He opposes censorship, is a supporter of the theory of evolution, and I don’t really know why I think he’s liberal, but I feel like he is. He’s certainly outspoken. Schulz seems to believe that most of the warming is caused by greenhouse gases as he seems to believe what the scientists say based on his conversation.
I think Wikipedia can be very useful. The material is looked at by many editors and yes, some of them can be wrong, but for the most part, I think it’s fairly reliable. I don’t think that Wikipedia should replace textbooks. Although most text books are probably not as reliable as we think they are, not all students have access to computers and internet at home. I think Wikipedia could be integrated as a resource into classroom activities but I don’t think it should be the sole resource.
I agree that Wikipedia is a good resource for learning and that it should be used along with other texts. I'm against textbooks. I think it's another for way corporations to get rich off taxpayer dollars. I know my view is extreme but I would like to see students reading other kinds of texts, newspaper articles, scientific journals, novels anything but textbooks. Research shows that when teachers don't have textbooks to rely on they come up with creative and more engaging ways of involving children in learning. I would really like to see students with a iPad or some other mobile device wireless device to access and critically think about information and creating information instead of passively consuming information.
ReplyDelete