This is incredibly disturbing. Apparently Conservapedia is not enough to keep certain extremist (misogynistic) elements happy.
I read this post - Wikipedia & Feminism at Feminist Law Professors in dismay & utter disbelief. DISMAY that the "free & open" sharing philosophy of Wikipedia is being so callously abused in the name of misogyny. UTTER DISBELIEF that our court system thinks Wikipedia is a citable, verifiable source. WHAT!? For god's sake! I lecture my students every semester about the fact that Wikipedia is NOT a verifiable source. A helpful easy reference tool at times, yes, but completely unadjudicated.
Do I need to personally lecture the US Court system every Fall & Spring as well?!
As an educator I struggle continuously to try to get the plugged-in generation to appreciate & understand that they can not google the world, that libraries exist, that "copyright" is still a legal concept, etc etc etc. The problem is that there is so much "open sharing" of easily accessible info that I honestly don't think they stop to think about the ethics & reliability of how they use info they find online. These are tricky times in this regard in academia. Plagiarism is on the rise because it is almost so easy (so they think) that they don't realize how wrong it is. There is an ethical disconnect that is very real. Not their fault sometimes. They are responding to the cues they are receiving from their plugged-in world.
SO!! I am thoroughly annoyed to find out that I am being undermined by the US Court system which is apparently now validating Wikipedia - & who only knows what next.
As for the misogynists trolling Wikipedia and "informationally" preying on feminism - I am beyond words. Aghast. Though sadly I am not surprised. I try so hard to NOT be cynical - but in the face of such behavior - it is very hard.
It rattles my world to think that a student of mine might naively believe something misrepresented ON PURPOSE on Wikipedia about feminism. My mind just can't go there.
I read this post - Wikipedia & Feminism at Feminist Law Professors in dismay & utter disbelief. DISMAY that the "free & open" sharing philosophy of Wikipedia is being so callously abused in the name of misogyny. UTTER DISBELIEF that our court system thinks Wikipedia is a citable, verifiable source. WHAT!? For god's sake! I lecture my students every semester about the fact that Wikipedia is NOT a verifiable source. A helpful easy reference tool at times, yes, but completely unadjudicated.
Do I need to personally lecture the US Court system every Fall & Spring as well?!
As an educator I struggle continuously to try to get the plugged-in generation to appreciate & understand that they can not google the world, that libraries exist, that "copyright" is still a legal concept, etc etc etc. The problem is that there is so much "open sharing" of easily accessible info that I honestly don't think they stop to think about the ethics & reliability of how they use info they find online. These are tricky times in this regard in academia. Plagiarism is on the rise because it is almost so easy (so they think) that they don't realize how wrong it is. There is an ethical disconnect that is very real. Not their fault sometimes. They are responding to the cues they are receiving from their plugged-in world.
SO!! I am thoroughly annoyed to find out that I am being undermined by the US Court system which is apparently now validating Wikipedia - & who only knows what next.
As for the misogynists trolling Wikipedia and "informationally" preying on feminism - I am beyond words. Aghast. Though sadly I am not surprised. I try so hard to NOT be cynical - but in the face of such behavior - it is very hard.
It rattles my world to think that a student of mine might naively believe something misrepresented ON PURPOSE on Wikipedia about feminism. My mind just can't go there.
Squid, all I can say is,
ReplyDelete"Mon dieu!" Sure, wikipedia is for the most part wonderfully useful in a pinch--there's some fine stuff up there, but it's hardly bible chapter and verse. As for student papers, you know, I've thought of having students do in-class papers--I really have little patience with such things, and many students would be woefully unprepared to write extempore. But with depressing ease, students indulge themselves in the opium-den of professionally produced "Notes" designed expressly to allow them to avoid serious engagement with texts. That negates the value of college education, and such students are in effect purchasing a piece of paper over a four-year period rather than learning anything. I don't so much ward them off the notes or wikipedia as suggest that they can be useful for a first, familiarizing look at a topic or text, but that then one must go off and find some interesting angle or story to tell about the work. That's what all good critics do, anyhow, and literature and criticism are my particular fields.
Dino - I'm mostly in the area, shall we say, of lit as well. When the curriculum allows, I tend to assign comparative essays that I know are "original" - ie - comparisons not to be found online. I do so by asking student to compare issues/themes in works across cultures & time frames. Admittedly this is a bit forced, at times, as I wrack my brain for questions that somehow tie disparate works together. Actually - its a fun challenge for me! But eventually I think of a thread to send them off thinking about - which is the point, as you say - to get them to think.
ReplyDeleteThere are other things about my discipline in particular that allow for more original, opinion based essays that get around cheating (intentional or not). (I'm trying not to leave too much of a public bio trail about myself here - don't mean to be so vague, Dino)
And I agree with you wholeheartedly that critical thinking skills are not something that every student possesses when they graduate. I wonder sometimes if I was just as bad & if I have just lost perspective.
But then I remember an assignment I had to do as an undergrad involving N. Fry's Anatomy of Criticism - I have never forgotten that assignment. It challenged me to think in a way that I never had before. And - Frye still informs my scholarship today.
So, Dino, even thought they may grumble, perhaps we will get through - at least to some of them!
As for the research challenged US Court system (which obviously needed us as teachers) - care to join me for my upcoming biannual lectures about PROPER researching?!
Plagiarize,
ReplyDeleteLet no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.
-Tom Lehrer-
The only educational institutions where I come from are schools of fish, and my experience is only peripheral. However, as a fellow traveler in The Swash Zone, I can offer these observations:
ReplyDelete* 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot
* If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried
* A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking
Squid: But then I remember an assignment I had to do as an undergrad involving N. Fry's Anatomy of Criticism
ReplyDeleteYes, I remember that one too. Lets see ... Mythic Mode, Romantic Mode, High Mimetic, Low Mimetic, and downright Filthy Mimetic.
Did I pass or fail?
Yes - alright smarty Octopus - but what about Fry's work - what theory - might interest a feminist scholar like me? I will be impressed if you can figure that out.
ReplyDeleteAnd SPEAKING of FEMINISM - did no one catch the bit in my post about the misogynistic editing of feminist entries in wikipedia????? Entries that we must now hope the US Courts don't cite as truth?
I thought that was absolutely horrifying.
Octo, yes, that description sounds about right.
ReplyDeleteSquid, yes, your methods sound very good -- I try to come up with odd paper topics too. Then, too, I suppose a fair amount of student behavior flows from teacher behavior--my students generally like me, know I'm rather eccentric and don't much care about formalities or propping up my own authority, and generally know whereof I speak. What I do, for the most part, is treat literature almost as a species of philosophy and wisdom-writing. So for the most part, I think they put in some genuine effort. So much of college experience, by its very structure, reminds students of high school, which of course is a thing one doesn't want to be reminded of, ever.
Finally, yes, I caught the anti-feminist troll reference. It is indeed wretched--I wonder if they do that with other sections of wikipedia. Certainly vigilance is called for. On the whole, there's some really fine material on that site, though it's of very uneven quality. I myself use it fairly regularly just to remind myself of a thing or two, though of course we erudite types know better than to treat it as anything more than that.
"wisdom writing" - I like that, Dino. And yes - I agree - I do think students learn from the behavior we model for them. No doubt, like you, I model my own teaching after that of those beloved teachers of my past - those that had a knack for getting through the fog of the college student brain.
ReplyDeleteAs for the wiki editing thing - yes indeed - this does raise the question about what else is being edited as well. And in a way - this all goes back to encouraging students to think for themselves - teaching them the skills to know how to be discerners of truth & fiction in our information saturated world. This will be a growing challenge for everyone in years to come. The untruths being perpetuated all over the web about the campaign are yet another example of the need for people to think for themselves & to tread with caution when they are given info. Such as the blog Fogg just cited in his post. An interesting connection - it occurs to me - between this post & his latest.
My goodness, darn it! I am beginning to sound suspicious & paranoid - what a shame!
Well you know, they are out to get us.
ReplyDelete