- Part I. Pick one or two of Gates's most provocative claims (about integrating the American mind). What can you find in Hood's essay or Zittrain's chapter that might challenge, disrupt, or possibly move the claims further? Compose your response as a "comment" below.
- Part II. Then, look over Best's article called "Damned Lies and Mutant Statistics" in Bb Genre Samples, Case Study #1. We'll talk about it together during our class discussion.
Unpacking Zittrain
- Part I. If we had to pick the principal (or most significant) parallal that Zittrain draws between road safety and how he presumes Wikipedia can work (in an ideal world), what would that be? What can you find in Gates's essay or Hood's essay that necessarily underscore this or support it? Compose your response as a "comment" below.
- Part II. Then, look over Best's article called "Damned Lies and Mutant Statistics" in Bb Genre Samples, Case Study #1. We'll talk about it together during our class discussion.
Working Forward from Hood
- Part I. What claims about the pedagogical value of Wikipedia (according to Hood) do we also see reflected in Zittrain's "Rise of Wikipedia," "Price of Success," or "Value of Netizenship" sections? Should we be challenging them? Compose your response as a "comment" below.
- Part II. Then, look over Best's article called "Damned Lies and Mutant Statistics" in Bb Genre Samples, Case Study #1. We'll talk about it together during our class discussion.
Hood makes several claims about the pedagogical values of Wikipedia. One of Hood’s focuses is on trusting the process: “Wikipedia entries, and other vehicles for public pedagogy, permit writers to display their confused first thoughts” (Hood 2). Hood also wants to envision, “teaching research in a new way and, consequently, [providing] students in my courses with opportunities to view their research and writing…as parts of ongoing public conversations that they have continuing stakes in producing” (Hood 7). Zittrain mentions in his chapter “Lessons of Wikipedia” that, “without the traffic sign equivalent of pages of rules and regulations, students who apprentice to generalized codes of honor may be prone to higher levels of honesty in academic work - and benefit from a greater sense of camaraderies grounded in shared values” (Zittrain 128-129). The idea that, “standards can work better than rules in unexpected contexts” also applies to Hood’s article (Zittrain 128). The pedagogical nature of Wikipedia allows for Wikipedia users to rely on trust in standards. Zittrain says the section on “The Value of Netizenship”, “Despite the apparent mess of process and users, by these standards Wikipedia has charted a remarkable course” (Zittrain 142). This applies to Hood’s article, in which she mentions that an initial mess of confused thoughts is necessary for progress, and for an ongoing process of conversation.
ReplyDelete- Christina and Osmar
Within "Integrating the American Mind" Gates claims " We should design a required humanities course thats truly humanists, with the Western segment comprising a quarter or a third in addition to the traditional Western segment...." In the teaching of American history and Western culture it is necessary to explain instances and happenings through a multi sense: not just as seen by the majority culture. "The Lessons of Wikipedia" expounds on this idea by highlighting the possibility of a "semiotic democracy". Essentially there are multiple participants in the cultural conversation so that there is a cycle of remaking history through different identities. One of the features of Wikipedia is that the stories, definitions, and sources are told or can be told from different perspectives. One of the many standards of Wikipedia is "individuals should not create or edit articles about themselves," an idea that supports Gate's claim of an ethnocentric storytelling educational system.
ReplyDeleteGate's essentially makes the claim that we harm our collective by not teaching a curriculum that spans the entirety of human history. Instead, it is taught from the "white" perspective (Greco-Roman system). We want progress and equality and that can't happen if our institutions of "higher learning" continue to follow the status quo of a white perspective. In Zittrain, he makes the claim that we are more lawful (legitimate) and well-rounded by allowing a wider and well-rounded contributing community. The "verkeersbordvrij" is a community that benefits from all members looking out for each other because the other members' safety is also their own safety. So, if everyone is safe the community is better. Thusly, the wikipedia pages and contributors are also part of a community that looks out for each other for relevant and accurate (unbiased) because they are held accountable to each other. -Katherine, Jordy, Allyn, Donald
ReplyDeleteGates' claim, "Education in a democratic society (or in one that aspires to that ideal) has particular burdens placed upon it: few theorists of American education, in this century or the preceding one, have separated pedagogy from the needs of citizenship" (Gates 342) is challenged by Hood's theory that Wikipedia delivers pedagogy that is familiar to writers and educators, and that the encyclopedia places value on the process not the product; a negotiation of words.
ReplyDeleteGate's whole initial claim is about the inequality in the American education system- with it centered on the West with little time tending to what is going on outside of the bubble. This "master discourse" has put a foothold on physical education. On the other hand, Zittrain talks about the value of netizenship, where he says: "We live under the rule of law when people are treated equally, without regard to their power or station; when the rules that apply to them arise legitimately from the consent of the governed; when those rules are clearly stated; and when there is a source of dispassionate, independent application of those rules" (142). This is the exact opposite of what Gates is claiming in his piece. This shows that Wikipedia as a medium has created a land of equality where the education system failed.
Hood claims that "because it is visible, public, and ongoing, Wikipedia demystifies writing process, bringing it out of writers’ private spaces, but at the same time, renders the final product obsolete and irrelevant, a trace of previous generations’ cycles of production and exchange" (Hood "Explanation in Progress"). Here, Hood expresses how readers/ Wikipedia users can learn from past submissions and rework the information, possibly leading to a new discovery. Since Wikipedia requires some sort of mediation where someone monitors the reliability of the information, it becomes a credible source that students can learn from. So, as a learning tool, Wikipedia allows students to constantly learn from reliable information and are able to contribute to the pre-existing discourse. According to Zittrain, "Wikipedia stands for the idea that people of diverse backgrounds can work together on a common project…. bringing such knowledge to the world" (Zittrain 147). The fact that Wikipedia allows for collaborative work amongst users, enables its users to learn from each other's additions and to build upon those submissions. However, claims are made by Zittrain about the potential pitfalls of intersecting largely crowd-sourced material and libel (Seigenthaler), although the implications of this in the classroom are not as severe, since the effects of a micro-environment such as a classroom are by definition contained.
ReplyDelete- Team Anon
Rules are less subjective and tell people what exactly they can and cannot do whereas standards allow people to "tailor" (128) their actions based on the situation at hand. This is the difference that Zittrain notices and writes about in "The Lessons of Wikipedia." Therefore, we can say that on Wikipedia, there are standards, not rules. The administrators are the enforcers who take the opportunituy, when seen, to set standards or make gray area a little more black or white. Carra Hood writes in her article "Editing Out Obscenity" that Wikipedia having standards is great because unlike print writing, you can edit out where another person left off. Hood did this when she found obscenity in a post and was able to tailor the article back to its original meaning. All of this can in does happen in society's across the world. Whether or not it is good is left up to the opinion of the masses, but we know this happens because this is the parallel that Zittrain draws between Wikipedia and traffic laws.
ReplyDeleteIn “Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy” Hood claims that Wikipedia has pedagogical value due to its emphasis on the writing process, not to the exclusion of product, but as a “respectable, long period of negotiation with words.” Hood also explains that the traditional writing process encourages students to view writing as a recursive habit with their texts as revisable drafts. In this pedagogy, the final product represents the end of process and of teachable writing skills. But according to Zittrain Wikipedia allows people to add, edit, and remove text. “Each change prompts others to make more changes and explain and justify their changes”, and “anyone disagreeing and changing something back can explain as well”. (Zittrain 134) In this situation, the audience becomes active participants in the writing process and more information and ideas are shared, which has pedagogical value to students.
ReplyDeleteEthics can be described as moral rules of conduct, and Fallibility is the liability of an individual to be wrong, regardless of whether they are knowledgeable or not of the error.
ReplyDeleteCertain statements can be defined as a question of ethics or fallibility depending on motive and intent. Ethics can be defined as moral behavior and values, while fallibility can be defined as liability to be mistaken.
ReplyDelete- Christina and Osmar
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEthics: One's moral compass or beliefs based on moral principle.
ReplyDeleteFallibility: Liability; being decieved or mistaken
Our group defines Wikipedia ethics as a standard of group behavior and etiquette that prioritizes freedom of information, neutral perspectives, and transparency. This definition of ethics acknowledges fallibility (the likelihood of human error) and seeks to counter it as opposed to eradicating it in any given person.
ReplyDeleteEthics: Moral principles; code of conduct that is recognized and respected by the people who follow it
ReplyDeleteFallibility: the likelihood or possibility of error. Acknowledging the possibility of being wrong.
Fallibility—the ability to be incorrect
ReplyDeleteEthics—biases exist in all human beings and all "facts" but a person writing in the public sphere has a responsibility to reduce and maintain "biases," thus ethics are a way of behaving that allows a writer/speaker/editor to try to not to offend, misrepresent, etc
-Katherine, Jordy, Allyn, Donald
Ethics- Awareness of possible positive and negative audience reception to information, effort to write and create from a non bias standpoint.
ReplyDeleteFallibility - Absolute certainty of a knowledge is impossible, logical justification of claim but skepticism in that not all writing is guaranteed truth.