Exploitation pédagogique du Wikipédia

Un de mes carnetiers préférés est Will Richardson, surtout à cause de son regard pédagogique.

Hier, il nous présente un billet sur un «screencast » traitant de Wikipédia. Ça vaut la peine de visionner (6 m 23 s).

Là où j’ai vraiment cliqué, ce sont les commentaires qui suivaient entre Will et une dénommée Janice. Elle dit :
« I recently was a volunteer reviewer of web projects done in the Doors to Diplomacy contest run by Global Schoolhouse. One thing that is required for these projects is that students clearly site where they got the information used in their web sites. A couple of them used Wikipedia as a sole source for some of the information on their pages.
I am really concerned about Wikipedia used in this way. I kind of like the idea of collaborative construction of a knowledge source. However, I am not sure that I would want my students to be getting information for their own projects from other unknown people who may be inexperienced, or opinionated or just plain wrong. We tend to think of an Encyclopedia as a SOLID, trustworthy resource and I am sure that is why students go to Wikipedia and treat it the same way.
It is true that even Encyclopedias have points of view and inaccuracies and should not be used as a single source, but that is a huge educational shift.

Will lui répond :

« Look, right now, 99% of sources are unknown to us, even those who publish books. Time and time again we see cases of blatant disregard for the truth and boatloads of bias. (Pick just about any book about US politics and the state of the world published in the last 18 months.) So for anyone to say without reservation that a printed book is necessarily better than Wikipedia is just not accurate. And to say that dozens or hundreds of people who collaborate on an entry can’t attain the same level of accuracy and lack of bias as Britannica or Grolier’s is also not accurate. They absolutely can. They absolutely do.
Wikipedia requires faith in a process and a group of people, faith that few of us believe is well placed because we’ve been told that the Internet is filled with a bunch of ne’er do wells with their own agendas. I’ve worked on some articles in Wikipedia. I’ve done it in good faith, and I know many others have to. For me, it’s been a shift, just like I have clearly shifted to an advocacy of open source software solutions. In fact, though I may be naive, I find great inspiration in Wikipedia and the open source movement, because both represent groups of people who are trying to do good for the sake of, well, doing good. Hard to believe.

Et la CLÉ dans tout ceci, selon moi, se résume au commentaire suivant de Janice :

« I think the main issue here is that it is MORE and MORE important to teach students a broader type of literacy than they have had in the past. We could just rule out use of the Internet and Wikipedia and such because they « might » have wrong information, but it would be so much better to teach students to ALWAYS use several sources for their information gathering. I think it is a VERY important issue and really appreciate hearing from someone who has more experience than I do at using the Wikipedia. »


(En guise d’encore, pour les intéressés, voici un autre « screencast », un peu plus long, absolument fascinant, qui en dit long sur le potentiel d’Internet, en général, et de Wikipédia, en particulier, malgré les critiques que le web est source de mal…

Bon jeudi! Beau soleil ici!!


Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s