Reflection on Encyclopedia vs Wikipedia

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language
- encyclopedia, encyclopaedia

- noun - a book or set of books containing many articles arranged in alphabetical order which deal either with the whole of human

- knowledge or with a particular part of it:
Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25549&dict=CALD

In the past encyclopaedias were bought almost as a status symbol to fill up bookshelves in homes and libraries and were at the time awesome repositories of knowledge produced by well known publishers such as Encyclopaedia Britainnica or Peers. In our household, and all libraries of the day, they were treated with reverance stemming from the fact that the knowledge within had painstakingly been collected, reviewed, checked, edited and then printed – a process which before computers and desktop publishing software took years. They were trusted, quoted and referred to mainly because they had supposedly been compiled by well qualified experts.Then in 2004 the apperace of the “wiki” became the“next big thing on the Internet” (Cummings2007).

Wiki
(n.) A collaborative Web site comprises the perpetual collective work of many authors
Similar to a blog in structure and logic, a wiki allows anyone to edit, delete or modify content that has been placed on the Web site using a browser interface
Source: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/w/wiki.html

It is therefore not surprising that when first referred to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) I was “blown away” as it felt both incredulous and strange. Why? Firstly, it was amazing to see this vast repository of knowledge (multilingual, Web-based, free content encyclopedia project) that had grown organically in just a few years with millions of articles, thousands of contributors and hundreds of languages available all free and easily accessible in electronic format with no registering or payment needed. Secondly, the strange part was that this repository was built up not by well qualified subject experts but by volunteer contributors. As someone who grew up in the age of “books come from experts” this was a “walk on the wild side”. My students use Wikipedia to get some scope on topics we are learning (albeit with a warning that this is a collection of common knowledge) mainly because it is quick and easy knowledge at your fingertips. Why not – we now live in a world of “instant cash, instant food, instant finance” so why not “instant knowledge?” Perhaps what still bothers me on the moral/ethical side is not so much the “instant” part but the credibility part. The issue is of course is whether or not the wiki knowledge can be trusted or not in the same way we used to inherently trust the old encyclopaedias of the past as a recognised source of knowledge? In this vein it is interesting to read in the Robert Cummings article about the Nature 2005 study which showed that after a detailed analysis there was supposedly a negligble difference between the accuracy of articles given in Encyclopedia Britannica and those given in Wikipedia. Something of a comforting thought for the old school amongst us!

Source: http://www.wildwiki.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=%E2%80%9CWhatWas_a_Wiki%2C_and_Why_Do_I_Care%3F_A_Short_and_Usable_History_of_Wikis%E2%80%9D

Kiwis are top bloggers

Newsflash

Article at 5:00AM Tuesday Jul 29, 2008By Eloise Gibson

• Latest survey shows that one in 13 Kiwis (or 1 in 10 Internet Users or 8%) has a weblog
• New Zealand has highest rate of bloggers out of 15 countries surveyed (followed by Japan)
• 31 % Asian, 12 % Pacifika, 6% Pakeha and 2% Maori are blogging in New Zealand
• 78% of New Zealanders use the Internet
• The downside is poor broadband coverage compare to other countries with a high number of Kiwis still using dial up compared to other countries

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10524003

James Farmer (2004) Article Key Concepts

Having recently read and pondered this article three important concepts were revealed to me and have stuck in my mind since. These key concepts are outlined as follows:

• Social presence “is the ability of participants in community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as “real people” i.e. their full personality through the medium of communication being used.” (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000, p 94)
• Cognitive presence is “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection an discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000, p 94)
• Teaching presence is “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes”(Anderson et al, 2001)
  
  The bottom line is that technologies used e.g. OLE, Discussion Boards or Web logs need to allow for the natural elements of “Social presence”, “Cognitive presence” and “Teaching presence” so that “real people” projecting real emotions can participate in a real community of enquiry.
  
  Main Source: Farmer, J. incorporated subversion http://incsub.org/blog/2004/communication-dynamics-discussion-boards-weblogs-and-the-development-of-communities-of-inquiry-in-online-learning-environments
  
  
  
  

1. When does the act of teaching compromise the role of a facilitator of an online community?

One way of answering this question could be to start with the given assumptions made by the Australian Quick Guide to online delivery of VET about the role of a facilitator being that of “manager”, pedagogically using “student-centered” approaches and play a “guide on the side” certain lines can be drawn in the sand with teaching on one side and true facilitating on the other side. Clearly the online facilitator has to try not to compromise the “guide on the side” approach by crossing the role line into the territory of going into assertive “sage on the stage” teaching mode. For the new online facilitator this means a process of constant “self-awareness” as to what mode they are operating in when functioning with learners online. To step out of the face to face classroom and sit in front of the computer for online students clearly requires a “mode switch”. There are conflicts and inner tensions with this process i.e. if we liken the learning process to a railway train - do you put the engine (teacher) at the front and pull the carriages (students) along or do you put the engine at the back and push the carriages along or does the train drive itself and you just ensure it stays on the rails? The teacher role is safer and offers the least line of resistance and is summed up well in Leigh’s (2007) comment that “teaching and instruction is the much easier path for all involved”

(http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/to-facilitate-or-to-teach/.)

Facilitating clearly requires a different skill set and if not done properly could be a bit of a minefield. Can we be taught to facilitate or is this gained through experience only? Does the old cliché of “he/she is a born teacher” apply to facilitating as well?

Source: http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/guides/facilitation.html

Role of online Moderating

In trying to grapple with the actual role of emoderator I initially looked at Salmons Five Stage Model (shown above). To get my head around these models I summarised key points from them in visual form to help my own understanding of what it is an emoderater is supposed to do. These diagrams are given below and I am hoping they will serve to remind me of the role of emoderater as I have this weird feeling we are going to put on a trial run as emoderators on the programme – this could be both an educative & entertaining challenge (Hope Leigh is close at hand for this one!).

The term moderating takes on a whole new role in the online arena where its main role is to provide feedback on elearning especially as the student is not in a face to face environment. E-modertaion involves managing, facilitating & engendering group based computer mediated communication (CMC) within two different technological approachs of Synchronous (Realtime) and Asynchronous (Delayed) Mediation.

Emoderating essentially involves providing feedback to online learners. The WikiEdProfessional elearning guide identifies some basic types of feedback including :
· Feedback for correcting errors in understanding or performance
· Feedback with affective intentions such as influencing motivation
· Feedback on the understanding of subject matter
· Feedback restating the original task or providing new information
In an online environment where visual cues are lacking the type of feedback given and the manner in which it is given could dictate what type of role is taken by the facilitator and by default will surely impact also on the perception of online learners as to the type of role being adopted by the facilitator

http://wikieducator.org/WikiEdProfessional_eLearning_Guidebook/Assessment%2C_feedback%2C_and_e-moderation/Providing_Feedback

Wrestling with definitions?

What is an ordinary community?

Communis comes from a combination of the Latin prefix com- (which means "together") and the word munis (which has to do with the exchange of services). But it is interesting to note that definitions on the term “community”are many and varied depending on context (ie. sociological, biological, religious, ethnic, business etc). In the old sense of the word there are two important elements, firstly – a group with common values – and secondly – a shared geographic location. Clearly communication technologies now have largely meant the second element is now defunct as Internet technologies mean people can communicate across National & International space (ie “global village”).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community

What is an online community?

A virtual community, e-community or online community is a group of people that primarily interact via communication media such as newsletters, telephone, email, online social networks or instant messages rather than face to face, for social, professional, educational or other purposes. . If the mechanism is a computer network, it is called an online community. An important part of an online community is the social software used to build social networks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_community

What is a social network?

A social network is a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, ideas, financial exchange, friendship, kinship, dislike, conflict or trade etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network

There appear to be some fine lines separating the concepts above:

• Original term Community is broad with a geographic colouring


• Online Community stems from the fact that communication media (computer network) must exist


• Social network is more about the stucture & relationship patterns which are displayed visually by graphs or maps of nodes (ie individuals or organisations) and ties (values, visions, ideas, trade, conflict, kinship etc)
  
  Despite my “focus time” it still seems a bit woolly to me with many overlapping grey areas. Any elucidation from fellow e-colleagues to help clarify for me would be most welcome! Any offers appreciated.
  Thanx GAC.

White Blogo spheres & Black blogo spheres - Why does this sound familiar?

As an ex South African who lived in South Africa under Apartheid where cultures were legally separated and as a result we had buses for whites, buses for blacks, beaches for whites and beaches for blacks etc my knee jerk response when seeing the existence of a “Black blogo sphere” and a “White blogo sphere” was to experience massive “de je vu” and disappointment that even cyberspace is being carved up into race based territories just like real countries have been. Are we witnessing racial conflict history repeat itself on line now. Is once again politics already shaping socialization patterns on the net as it has done for centuries on the ground? I can hear you saying “wake up to reality” but just like the cyber cops now needed to patrol “Second Life” our cyber worlds are not better built worlds of mutual understanding but just mirrors of the same old real world problems & conflicts or as Milton put it “A Paradise Lost”! I can hear you now asking me why be so naive to think that politics, and race relations would not be the driving forces of the internet, along with other vices of crime and greed. As a communications technology it is a pity that it has to be hijacked for soap box speeches or hate speech etc. If on the other hand it can be used to gain better understanding between cultures through what should be a neutral technology then I say - great! Certainly the Afroshpere blog with aims to bring “a variety of experiences, perspectives, ideas, beliefs and values in an effort to foster understanding, wisdom, knowledge and strength between 4 different countries on 3 continents” seems to be a positive way forward to use blogging technology. Better get off my soap box now! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrosphere