Today Murphy came to visit. We had one hour to do a video presentation. As we came together the idea of a debate flew into my head and my teammates were willing to go with it. After a 1/2 hour discussion we tried to pull it together to tape it within the time constraints I put on the group. Our thoughts were all sripted, (see the link) and I think we had addressed the academic issue. The issue then became one of language, first being sure the words precisely expresssed the intended thought, the dilemna of writers. Then the problem became one of editing, being sure that the word on the page were grammatically correct, and then that there were no typos. I found it difficult to step away from my English teacher self to say that this is a spoken project so the typos are irrelevant. |Or that the meaning of the coherent thoughts is communicated despite accent and word order differences between language. When there are time constraints it is so important to learn to be satisfied with good enough, or to recognize priorities. But these little problems we dealt with satisfactorily.
The real problem was my own once I got home. One teammember said he possessed the experise to cobble together a cohesive piece if we could just independently tape our respective lines. Terrrific. I thought I would just get back to my room, tape my lines, e-mail them by 8:00 and my part would be done. But lo and behold my "bit" ws 254 mg. Sure, just try e-mailing that. You are over your, What!, your 25 mg limit for e-mail attachments. Would you like to save as SkyDrive? SkyDrive! What is SkyDrive. Ok. Sure, why not? But where is it now? Can't find it. Must tape each line separately. Then I found that some lines were over 25 mg too. Send the ones that are less than 25 mg. Let the cobbling begin.
At that point I sent an email and saying let's meet at 8:30 and tape the whole thing as one cohesive piece. Finally, after midnight I was way too tired to care whether the background changed. We'll call it a different camera angle. My pajamas were hidden, the bed made. By the time I was done, my attempts at humour sounded wooden. I needed the human interaction to bring them off.
In today's world we are always fighting the clock. There is NOT the time we wish for. We have to learn to accept good enough so that we can make progress. Perfection does not exist, and striving to get at the first attempt can only fail. That is why Murphy is such a dreaded visitor. He plays with your head and humbles you. We must realize that as close as we will ever come to perfection only comes from collaboration. And collaboration sometimes takes more time than the deadlines permit.
The real problem was my own once I got home. One teammember said he possessed the experise to cobble together a cohesive piece if we could just independently tape our respective lines. Terrrific. I thought I would just get back to my room, tape my lines, e-mail them by 8:00 and my part would be done. But lo and behold my "bit" ws 254 mg. Sure, just try e-mailing that. You are over your, What!, your 25 mg limit for e-mail attachments. Would you like to save as SkyDrive? SkyDrive! What is SkyDrive. Ok. Sure, why not? But where is it now? Can't find it. Must tape each line separately. Then I found that some lines were over 25 mg too. Send the ones that are less than 25 mg. Let the cobbling begin.
At that point I sent an email and saying let's meet at 8:30 and tape the whole thing as one cohesive piece. Finally, after midnight I was way too tired to care whether the background changed. We'll call it a different camera angle. My pajamas were hidden, the bed made. By the time I was done, my attempts at humour sounded wooden. I needed the human interaction to bring them off.
In today's world we are always fighting the clock. There is NOT the time we wish for. We have to learn to accept good enough so that we can make progress. Perfection does not exist, and striving to get at the first attempt can only fail. That is why Murphy is such a dreaded visitor. He plays with your head and humbles you. We must realize that as close as we will ever come to perfection only comes from collaboration. And collaboration sometimes takes more time than the deadlines permit.
Group Video Presentation
Can we Trust Wikipedia
Millie Welcome to a debate about the trustworthiness of Wikipedia entries, of the use Wikipedia has in the academic community.
Joe Simple believes that Wikipedia is a trustworthy academic source while Happy Haniy believes we must proceed cautiously, that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source.
√727Let me begin by posing a fundamental question. What causes one to trust a source of information?
Joe Simple: I can tell in a face to face interaction I can generally tell from the body language, from eye contact with the claimant whether s/he is telling me the truth. There is something about the logic of the facts, if the matter is one without controversy and mistakes in the logic. I connect to other information that I possess. If the incoming information sits well with my prior knowledge, with my world view, then I am more likely to accept the source as trustworthy.
√728Millie: What causes you, Happy Haniy, to distrust a source?
Happy Haniy: I feel I have an obligation to teach my students the truth. When I do not feel comfortable with the integrity of a source, I could not, according to my own professional ethics, recommend its use to my students. When I want my elementary students to know about a topic, parrots for eg., I send them to a site called Clusty.com.
√729Millie: But Clusty.com is just one more website, just like the millions of others out there. How do you know it is trustworthy?
Happy: This is an educational source for student learning recommended to me by my School Division’s IT consultant. They trust her, therefore I trust her. I do not feel I need to put her credentials under scrutiny.
– personal view of truth factor, integrity,
-corrupt or deceitful intention
-personal agenda
For economic, political or simple mischief
√725Millie: How is the issue of trust different online from what it is in face to face environment, Simple Joe? Oh, dear, it’s Joe Simple. There’s a big difference, isn’t there. How perspective changes with the benefit of scrutiny, of a moment of monitoring. Yes, so please, the difference between trust face to face to face vs on line.
Joe Simple: You are right, of course, there is no lie detector for online sources. Online sources are anonymous. I am surprised that these anonymous writers have often given me reliable information. I rely on logic. I have knowledge in my field of expertise. When I have gone to sites on the internet, for eg, Wikipedia, I have been pleased to see that the writings there contain accurate information.
Truth for me does not depend on the prestige and status of the author, but rather on my perception of the facts according to how they jive with what I already know. The more I know, the more I can rely that the information I am accumulating integrates with my view.
√703Millie: What would you say in response to this issue, Happy?
Happy: I prefer to rely on traditional methods of establishing credibility of authorship. In a face to face environment I have cultural and contextual information that helps me establish credibility.
-criteria for trust- Consistent with personal value and belief system
Entrants are accountable
-academic credentials of entrant are searchable referenced to their blog, their Facebook and Twitter
Referenced to credible refereed sources
Entries are community moderated
√723Millie: So, given these issues of on line vs face to face trust, let me ask youthis. What role does Wikipedia serve in today's information environments? How are you willing to use this source in your professional or personal quest for knowledge? Mr. Simple, please, you may respond first.
Simple Jo: My experience has been very good. When I have a discussion with my family, we check it on Wikipedia. It is the first place we go for information. When I prepare something new, I start my investigation on Wikipedia. Then I go to other sources, a Google search, books, refereed articles, the dictionary.
√709Millie: But Hanyi, you do not trust Wikipedia. What role do you see for this source of information in todays information environment? Afterall, your students to there despite what you will say. It is so often the first information source to come up on any search for information. As they say, it’s just out there – everywhere you look it just wiki wiki, wiki ...
Hanyi: Certainly, I have to admit its existence. I will use it, but I would require my students to use caution.
√710Millie. What does that mean? Afterall, you are dealing with elementary students. What can they know of caution?
Hanyi: I would tell them that when they find one answer on Wikipedia, they have to cross refere3nce Wikipedia to at least three other sources in order to establish Wikipedia’s validity and reliability.
√712Millie: How can we begin to trust user-created information? Joe Simple, what has your experience been?
Joe: Wikipedia seldom lies to me. In almost every case where I have checked their information, I have found the source to be reliable and valid.
√715Millie: What would you say in this regard. When are you prepared to trust user created information like that contributed to Wikipedia by volunteers?
Hanyi: I now realize that what stays on Wikipedia has been scrutinized by community monitors. What has been placed there is cross referenced to refereed and reliable resources. I have to expose the kids to information sources that are there for them now and in the future. I am prepared to trust Wikipedia.
√730Millie: I want to thank you both for participating in this debate today. It seems that Wikipedia has come a long way, from being a questionable resource for beginning researchers to being a source of first resource for academic thinkers.
√731I myself know a professor who checks his own references against Wikipedia to ensure that he hasn’t left anything out of his own thinking that is significant. There we go again the problem of word order. It happens even to the fluent. I mean, he goes to Wikipedia to ensure that he has not neglected a significant issue from his thinking. Yes, Wikipedia, or an online info source for all, is here to stay . The community of volunteers ensures validity and reliability, from spelling, punctuation and syntax, to content. Because of the community, because of collaboration and time, it has gained a level of respect as one research tool for all levels of education.
