fabio suarez's List: wikipedia

• In this paper, I discuss academics’ views on and uses of Wikipedia as an academic source.
• semi-structured interview protocol was used to collect data from a purposively selected group of graduate students and university faculty
• A semi-structured interview protocol was used to collect data from a purposively selected group of graduate students and university faculty.
• Results revealed that participants have a positive attitude towards Wikipedia’s use for nonacademic purposes
• esults revealed that participants have a positive attitude towards Wikipedia’s use for nonacademic purposes however they believe that use of Wikipedia for research and coursework should be limited
• however they believe that use of Wikipedia for research and coursework should be limited.
• How do academics approach Wikipedia as a resource in their courses and research
• he main research question guiding this investigation is “How do academics approach Wikipedia as a resource in their courses and research?”
• , academia has a more conservative attitude towards adapting these technologies
• academia has a more conservative attitude towards adapting these technologies
• The collective generation of knowledge without the control of a central authority raises discussions over the validity and the reliability of the knowledge generated
• The collective generation of knowledge without the control of a central authority raises discussions over the validity and the reliability of the knowledge generated
• Accumulated reputation functions as a source of authority (Ciffolilli, 2003)

  • una fuente de autoridad o diria yo de credibilidad en wikipedia son los autores que han acumulado ya una reputacion

  • autor a retener
• n Wikipedia, social barriers are overthrown during recruitment of authors
• However the openness that makes Wikipedia appealing to its contributors discomforts some scholars

  • de pronto afecta el ego de los academicos
• his makes it difficult for scholars to evaluate the reliability of an article by considering the reputation and authority of its authors. Another challenge is the lack of permanence in Wikipedia articles. If you refer to some information in a Wikipedia article, since contributors continuously modify the information in articles, there is no guarantee that the referred information will be there over time.

  • respecto al problema de la falta de permanencia de un articulo, en un libro que lei, habla sobre la opcion de grabar el articulo fijo, quiere decir que si hay modificaciones en linea, el articulo fijo no sufrira modificaciones, esto es una razon para entender que el problema a veces es el desconocimiento de las herramientas para utilizar wikipedia.

  • el problema es que no se sabe como evaluar un trabajo que ha sido construido colectivamente
• Wikipedia attempts to stay reliable by imposing a content policy structure on its authors. There are three documents expressing the content policy of Wikipedia: (1) Neutral point of view (NPOV), (2) verifiability, and (3) no original research.
• Verifiability (Wikipedia:verifiability, 2009) requires the authors to provide references to reputable resources when they present factual information.
• According to the no original research (Wikipedia:no original research, 2009) policy authors cannot publish research on Wikipedia.

  • aca esta la respuesta a mi pregunta, no se puede publicar una recherche, sin embargo no se descarta que un chercheur saque info de wikipedia
• All research mentioned in a Wikipedia article should have been published in a reputable resource.
• The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is “true” or not. It isn’t appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone’s novel theory of physics is valid, we aren’t really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it’s quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.

  • El concepto básico es el siguiente: se puede ser muy difícil para nosotros hacer un juicio válido en cuanto a si una cosa en particular es "verdad" o no. No es apropiado para nosotros para tratar de determinar si la teoría de la novedad de alguien de la física es válida, no estamos realmente preparados para hacer eso. Pero lo que podemos hacer es comprobar si es o no realmente ha sido publicado en revistas de prestigio o por los editores de confianza. Así que es muy conveniente para evitar juzgar la credibilidad de las cosas, simplemente apegarse a las cosas que han sido juzgados creíbles por la gente mucho mejor preparado para decidir.
• By imposing the no original research and verifiability policies Wikipedia avoids making value judgments if a particular argument, research, fact or opinion is legitimate or rigorous.
• The measure for the reliability of a piece of information is judged based on whether this information was taken from a reputable resource or not.
• o original research policy prevents people from publishing their research for the first time in Wikipedia and verifiability policy provides the criteria for evaluating which of the existing research is reputable and legitimate to use in Wikipedia
• Read (2006a) states that academics are split on whether to ignore Wikipedia or to contribute to it.

  • autor a leer
• Read claims that most university professors are skeptical towards Wikipedia because it is difficult to know if the information presented was written by an established scholar in the field or someone “with an ax to grind.”
• ead claims that most university professors are skeptical towards Wikipedia because it is difficult to know if the information presented was written by an established scholar in the field or someone “with an ax to grind

  • esto muestra el proteccionismo que lei en algun lado que busca que el conocimiento siempre pertenezca a alguien con el derecho de producirlo y difundirlo

  • no entiendo la expresion with an ax to grind
• According to Read, academics do not like the fact that Wikipedia refuses to give priority to academics or other experts
• Elliah Meek, summarizes this attitude: “The university needs Wikipedia more than Wikipedia needs the university”.

  • otro autor a mencionar
• he way knowledge is generated in Wikipedia challenges our traditional understanding of intellectual property ownership.
• Miller (2005) explains how the identity of each author becomes unimportant during the collective effort.
• Miller (2005) explains how the identity of each author becomes unimportant during the collective effor
• ryan, Forte, and Bruckman (2005) examined how authors endeavor to sustain an identity where no entity completely belongs to one author but each author has a share in many entities. Th

  • menciona varias investigaciones ya hechas en wikipedia
• ryan, Forte, and Bruckman (2005) examined how authors endeavor to sustain an identity where no entity completely belongs to one author but each author has a share in many entities.

  • autores a retenir, toca traducir bien esta frase
• his resembles a communal structure where no one is allowed to own personal property but everyone is allowed to use and contribute to public property
• Jaron Lanier (2006), critical of the collective nature of Wikipedia, states that the collective “hive” mind is not always smart.
• e focuses on the content in Wikipedia and explains how the personal voice in the text disappears in Wikipedia articles.

  • en este parrafo Lanier critica el discurso impersonal que existe en wikipedia, ya que es escrito por todos, eeso le puede quitar apego de leer por parte del lector
• e focuses on the content in Wikipedia and explains how the personal voice in the text disappears in Wikipedia articles. “A
• esirable text is more than a collection of accurate references,” said Lanier, pointing out that Wikipedia is a part of a disturbing trend on the Internet where collective thought is mindlessly valued over individual intellec

  • una critica razonable
• He expressed that the reader should sense the personality of the author so that she can have a better grasp of the meaning behind the language

  • me parece una critica muy valida la de Lanier
• He expressed that the reader should sense the personality of the author so that she can have a better grasp of the meaning behind the language.
• Some researchers inquired how Wikipedia can compete with peer reviewed, expert edited encyclopedias even though its content can be edited by anyone. Viegas, Wattenberg, and Kushal (2003) answered this question by developing a statistical tool named the “history flow” tool. The history flow tool seeks for collaboration patterns in the online social space. Viegas et al. (2003) concluded that there are three main principles that make Wikipedia a suitable place for the generation of collective knowledge: (1) the watch list that tracks all the editing on a document, (2) the talk pages and other discussion spaces where community members have meta-level discussions, and (3) the content policies, especially “neutral point of view” policy, which provide both a common ground and rough guidelines for solving disputes.
• expert edited encyclopedias even though its content can be edited by anyone. Viegas, Wattenberg, and Kushal (2003) answered this question by developing a statistical tool named the “history flow” too
• Some researchers inquired how Wikipedia can compete with peer reviewed,

  • nos hablade investigaciiones ya abordadas sobre wikipedia
• Viegas et al. (2003) concluded that there are three main principles that make Wikipedia a suitable place for the generation of collective knowledge:

  • argumenta muy bien porque wikipedia ayuda a generar conocimiento colectivo, aqui reafirmo que es simplemente cuestion de conocer bien la herramienta para poder afirmarlo
• the watch list that tracks all the editing on a document, (2) the talk pages and other discussion spaces where community members have meta-level discussions, and (3) the content policies, especially “neutral point of view” policy, which provide both a common ground and rough guidelines for solving disputes.
• To assess the quality of articles in Wikipedia, Giles (2005) compared 42 random scientific articles from Wikipedia and Britannica an
• both resources include a close number of “disingenuous” points.
• he study also revealed that 17% of the authors of the Nature journal were consulting with Wikipedia on a weekly basis, while 70 % of them are aware of Wikipedia.
• Lih (2003) explains the relatively high quality of content in Wikipedia is due to its ability to track the status of articles,
• Lih also elucidates how Wikipedia emphasizes social interaction over technological solutions and how it encourages creativity, rather than imposing a strict and authoritarian social environment on the authors

  • de pronto esto es coherente con lo que el socioconstructivismo propone
• review individual changes, and hold discussions within the community
• Academics feel this challenge personally since both teaching and research are affected by these new ways of knowledge generation and sharing
• hese challenges should be discussed in academic contexts to make necessary policy changes that can open the way for the useful and productive use of Web 2.0 technologies for educational purposes.

  • esta es una de mis propuestas, la definicion de nuevas normas en el ambito academico para evaluar la produccion del conocimiento, teniendo en cuenta los desarios que trae las nuevas web 2 para producir conocimiento colectivo
• his requires extensive discussions and changes in our value systems in regard to reliability of information and how to utilize nonacademic, collective and open resources like Wikipedia.

• • n which ways do academics think Wikipedia can be used as a resource?

     
   
  •  

    What are their concerns over the use of Wikipedia?

     
   
  •  

    What are their epistemological stances towards the knowledge generated in Wikipedia?

     
   
   

  Participants

• • In which ways do academics think Wikipedia can be used as a resource?

     
   
  •  

    What are their concerns over the use of Wikipedia?

     
   
  •  

    What are their epistemological stances towards the knowledge generated in Wikipedia?
• aculty and graduate students who are familiar with and have used Wikipedia were the potential population for this study
• fter the study was approved by the IRB committee in the office of research compliance at Indiana University
• Five people volunteered to be interviewed
• Two interviewees preferred to have phone interviews and three interviewees preferred face to face interviews
• Faculty participants included two emeritus professors from Psychological and Brain Sciences program at IU (Indiana University) and one assistant professor from the Early Childhood program at Texas A&M University.
• ne interviewee was a post-doc in the School of Optometry at IU. The last interviewee was a graduate student in the Art Education program at IU.
• 1) approaches to and use of Wikipedia, (2) concerns over Wikipedia’s use and (3) epistemological approach towards knowledge in Wikipedia.

  • parece que la metodologia era un cuestionario dividido en categorias, y cada categoria obedecia a una pregunta de la recherche
• The first version of the interview protocol included 16 questions under three categories;
• The complete interview protocol can be found in the Appendix.
• Mark is an assistant professor of early childhood education
• e usually refers to Wikipedia for his personal interests. He mostly looks up information about music and singers. He also uses Wikipedia as a starting point for research.
• When he uses Wikipedia to look up academic information, he verifies it with other resources
• e does not rely on the information in Wikipedia when he is looking up information for publicatio
• Mark has never written an article in Wikipedia. However, he once edited an article about his favorite singer.
• Mark believes that Wikipedia has some advantages over other resources: It is up to date, it values public and general consensus, and it has a peer review system.
• Mark regards the content in Wikipedia as user friendly, easy to read and fairly high quality. He especially believes that technical and factual content in Wikipedia is reliable.
• In terms of professional usage, Mark uses Wikipedia only to look up basic terminology or basic theories if he has very limited time.
• n his limited experience with content in Wikipedia relevant to his field, he refers to the information as “very good, comprehensive and not overly technical.”
• Nevertheless he thinks that Wikipedia is a great tool for students when they use it as a starting point for their research.
• However he finds it reasonable for students to start their research in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia articles provide links to academically reputable resources
• thinks that authors are free to put their opinions in and reflect their biases in the articles they are contributing.
• ark has not been informed about the content guiding policies in Wikipedia.
• Susan (a pseudonym) is a graduate student in art education
• She thinks that Wikipedia stimulates further questions on the subject she is reading about and provides additional resources.
• Susan uses Wikipedia as a starting point for research
• owever she thinks that Wikipedia should not be cited in a research article.
• he also finds it positive that Wikipedia allows for multiple perspectives that may not be presented equally in other resources
• up to date.
• She also likes how conflicts are resolved within the discussion pages for each article
• usan stated that anonymity can be an advantage however it can also create a sense of recklessness.
• she referred to other resources as more stagnant but also more reliable and reputable.
• He occasionally uses Wikipedia for personal interests and rarely for research
• He sometimes uses Wikipedia in his courses.
• Jack looks up information relevant to his course topics. For research, he also looks up definitions and descriptions of concepts in Wikipedia
• owever he finds beneficial articles in Wikipedia for his course and puts links to those articles in the course websit
• In his courses he does not encourage general use of Wikipedia.
• He said, “I select the articles that are good and readable for them (students).” He believes that the quality of articles in Wikipedia varies.
• He thinks that authors should not be anonymous in Wikipedia
• He said that when someone signed a document he/she would take responsibility for the content in it.
• He mostly reads Wikipedia articles about psychology and sensory processing
• Well, I might accept it for low level courses; freshman and sophomore courses where they are just beginning to accumulate information.
• He believes that Wikipedia can be used as a starting point for research as long as it is not the only resource used.
• erry believes that students should know about the structure of Wikipedia and how knowledge is generated so that they can judge the value of information there.

  • comparto el punto de vista de jerry
• erry thinks that “students should not look up to Wikipedia as a source of extremely accurate and deep knowledge in a discipline they are learning about.”
• During his reflection about the use of Wikipedia in research, Jerry stated that he sometimes refers to Wikipedia and follows the links to further resources provided at the end of the article.
• owever he believes that only the information in refereed scientific journals should be cited in research articles;
• the other resources, such as Wikipedia and academic databases, can be used to reach the appropriate literature
• You don’t cite whole lots of other places that give you the first thing.
• however he never cites these resources in his articles; and it is the same with Wikipedia
• I am afraid the only place where Wikipedia can get credit for all the good work it does is in articles about Wikipedia like the one that you are going to write.”
• Jerry thinks that Wikipedia is fast, easy to read, very accessible and up to date. However he feels uncomfortable about the way articles are cited in Wikipedia:
• I look for information and they don’t have a date on them
• o I need to read the references and scan through to see how recent the references are.”

  • una sugerencia puede ser entonces colocoar las fechas de las citaciones
• “The articles have a professional tone mostly.”
• Jerry thinks that anonymity may motivate people to edit articles more comfortably.
• or me a Wikipedia article is just a pointer to something else. I am not going to cite it any way
• owever he thinks that it would be interesting to see the name of the author if the author is someone he knows from his field.
• He said that it would make it easier to understand why an article is written in a certain way.
• Jerry finds the content in Wikipedia “surprisingly” reliable
• He stated that Wikipedia is more accessible but less accurate compared to these resources
• However he said that he prefers to use Wikipedia rather than Encyclopedia Britannica because Wikipedia is more accessible and has a wider coverage of topics
• “I tolerate a margin of error when I am doing causal look up stuff.”
• He is not currently teaching but he used to work as a teaching assistant and a proctor during his PhD studies at University of California, Berkeley.
• He often looks up for information about terms and techniques in optometry.
• He has never contributed to or edited an article in Wikipedia.
• uring his work as a proctor Abhay found some undergraduate students citing Wikipedia in their research article
• He thinks that it was acceptable because the articles they referred to were accurate: “There I found students cite articles in Wikipedia.
• He also gives an example for a situation where he learned about a new technique in his field by following the Wikipedia article cited in one of the student papers.
• bhay told us that he would absolutely encourage use of Wikipedia if he were currently teaching.
• He thinks that Wikipedia supports the representation of multiple perspectives better than other resources, such as text books and research papers which reflect the views of an author or a group of authors.
• He stated that Wikipedia articles can be cited in student papers in introductory level courses;
• ” However he believes that Wikipedia should not be cited in more advanced courses because “it misses the nuances.”
• However he believes that a Wikipedia article should not be cited because it may not be reliable.
• n his explanation he said that the scientific world would not accept a Wikipedia article as a legitimate citation
• He does not know about the content guiding policies.

  • al parecer mucha gente desconoce la normatividad dentro de wikipedia
• he knows that it is an open source and there is some policing
• he believes that prioritizing expert views is not a good idea
• he thinks that the existence of an editorial group overseeing the community can be a good idea so that overly marginal ideas do not leak into the content.
• He also believes that there should be an editorial board where people freely express their opinions.
• bhay said that the alternating voice of the author is a concern in Wikipedia:

  • otro profe en otro articulo menciono la misma preocupacion de que no hay una voz que se diriga al lector
• Abhay believes that the only disadvantage of collective knowledge generation in Wikipedia is the disappearance of nuances about a topic: “
• The themes that emerged as a result of interview data analysis point to a general interest and positive attitude towards Wikipedia,
• ome of the concerns expressed towards the use of Wikipedia, such as problems with reliability, the voice of the author, credibility of the authors and difficulties with referring to ever changing content structure can be generalized to cover the use of all Web 2.0 technologies,
• 1) Wikipedia as a starting point for research
• 2) Using Wikipedia to look up definitions and descriptions of concepts and theories
• Up to date information in Wikipedia
• Susan mentioned that she uses Wikipedia as a news portal because the articles about daily events are updated in minutes
• Presentation of multiple perspectives
• Citing Wikipedia in introductory level courses
• all of the participants expressed negative attitudes towards prioritizing expert views in Wikipedia
• ) Knowledge about the structure and the knowledge generation process in Wikipedia
• None of the participants knew about the content guiding policies imposed in Wikipedia.
• He indicated that he feels the need to learn about the content guiding policies in Wikipedia. He also stated that students should know about the structure of Wikipedia so that they do not think that the information there is “extremely accurate.”

  • el testimonio de este profe resplada mi idea de formacion de skills en wikipedia
• They all stated that, within their limited experience, the information in Wikipedia is fairly reliable
• However they do not approach to Wikipedia with absolute confidence.
• All the interviewees stated that it is unacceptable to cite Wikipedia articles in a research study;
• anonymity of the authors, concerns over reliability, absence of original research and the ever-changing nature of the articles were some reasons.
• they do not have the same confidence in students’ ability to evaluate the content.
• his yields to the question “How should we inform students about what reliability is and the ways of assessing the reliability of content provided in online resource

  • pregunta que inquieta mucho a los academicos
• Participants’ lack of knowledge about Wikipedia’s content guiding policies appeared to hinder their evaluation of reliability issues

  • respalda tambien mi tema de skills de wikipedia, aunque en este caso es mas el conocimiento de las normas de wikipedia
• is may point to a general need of informing faculty about what Web 2.0 technologies are, particularly Wikipedia, and how they can be used as a part of technology integration programs.
• articipants were also not aware of the verifiability and no original research policies.
• he data collected in this study has revealed a more positive approach, from academics’ perspectives, to Wikipedia than it is indicated in the literature (Lanier, 2006; Read, 2006a).

  • aca se evidencia que los estudios demuestran diferentes perspectivas de los academicos respecto a wikipedia, este estudio es positivo, y los de Read indican otra cosa
• wever participants also expressed some concerns about the credentials of authors, the disappearance of the “author’s voice”, the impersonalization of content because of the collectivist nature of knowledge generation, and the unsustainability of content that can be characterized as “anything can change anytime.

  • aca se evidencian las preocupaciones de los academicos
• here are some attempts to create Wiki communities where the identities of the authors are more emphasized and expert view is prioritized and encouraged, like Citizendium, a project of Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger. The implications and possible uses of these environments in academia could be addressed in future research

  • este tema de wikipedia es original y se puede desprender un tema a investigar, como el Citizendium u otros mas

160 more annotations...