Step Six:
I really don't understand what this is saying. But I think that this is discussing how people can make edits to the information to the article; however the information may be rejected by administrators. But I thought the description was very confusing and I cannot relate on it more than that.
Step Seven: This was very confusing and intense discussion about the process of how the information in the article was obtained. I felt that the other authors were not satisfied with the citations and sources that "Uncle Ed" was using to obtain the information. From my understanding Uncle Ed was providing information from all sources even those scientist that questioned how much global warming is caused by Human Activities. The problem seems to be a disagreement of some of the information that was presented about Human Activities being the most significant factor in global warming, rather than the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Step Eight:
It appears that Uncle Ed is a civilian such as myself that likes to read through wikipedia, and correct mistakes within the articles. He finds wikipedia a valuable source but not well-written. Uncle Ed also seems to be against women having equal rights. He seems to believe that man is the stronger and better gender. He seems to believe highly in politics and that they are the superior no matter the situation. He also seems to have strong feelings about scientist and believe that scientist are withholding information from the public? This theories are obtained by examining the articles and clips he took from various articles.
It appears that Setphan Shultz seems to have a well rounded background as well as a good educational background. He has obtained a variety of awards for his patience and determination during the use of wikipedia. He is the type of person that is able to stay calm and reasonable through a disagreement. He seems to be very interested and have positive thoughts about wikipedia however he agrees there are errors in the articles.
Step Nine: Prior to this activity I was aware that multiple people had access to edit and make comments about information on Wikipedia. This fact makes me nervous about obtaining information from the site because I worry about the information validity. But I was unaware about the specific people and the discussion area.
How do think Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom activities.
Wikipedia is a good source to obtain information as long as you are willing to do additional searches about that information. It is a great way to introduce ideas and new pathways for researching the information. I think this would be great for a classroom lesson about validity and deciding which sites to trust, other types of activities could be determine two things you like in an article and find additional information about those topics. That is just a few of the ideas, but even though the information should not be used alone it is a valuable starting place.
What you think about using Wikipedia instead of textbooks?
I am not sure that I would like to use Wikipedia instead of textbook, although the textbook process is not a valuable one. I might use a combination of the two and I am not against using Wikipedia but I would prefer to use a variety of valuable sources. One of the positives about Wikipedia is that it is more current and stays up to date, with out spending hundreds of dollars each year on textbooks. So yes it will be a valuable source for information.
Post an image that represents your views on Global Warming.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post is now finished.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Sarah! I agree that Wikipedia can be valuable as long as it is used as one of several sources! I also think kids might get interested and informed about a topic by reading the Discussion section. I think it might add drama to the research process that could engage students in a real world way.
ReplyDelete