I read an interesting post from Andy Chiles about a ‘lecturer banning students from using google and wikipedia“.

Anyone who has been a student in the wiki age, knows that citing wikipedia (or any non-authoritative work) is a tabu.

Professor Tara Brabazon, after noticing that student research mostly relies on the first results in a search query, said:

Too many students don’t use their own brains enough. We need to bring back the important values of research and analysis.

Additionally, the professor commented:

I want students to sit down and read. It’s not the same when you read it online. I want them to experience the pages and the print as much as the digitisation and the pixels. Both are fine but I want them to have both, not one or the other, not a cheap solution.

I find it to be a very interesting subject, for two reasons:

• The lecturer supports that the students do not practice their interpretative skills, when citing the results of search engines. So what students do is just reconstruct the online sources. But couldn’t they do the same with analog books?

• The lecture doesn’t say anything about the trustworthiness of the sources. After the debate raised by the new Google Knol platform, I’m really curious if authoritative articles are also banned, or is it just collaborative works that are considered superficial.

But all in all, i find her remarks correct.

• She bans digital information, so that the students will also learn the analog process.

I want students to sit down and read. It’s not the same when you read it online. I want them to experience the pages and the print as much as the digitisation and the pixels. Both are fine but I want them to have both, not one or the other, not a cheap solution.

It is a process, that I find necessary in any type of research. It just widens the field of research and opinions.

• Using only websites and search engine results as a reference to a work, will probably provide an incomplete view of a subject.
  It is also a method, that most students are very well accustomed to. It’s time to try something new.

But I disagree with the view, that digitisation is to blame for students not using their brain anymore. If indeed students don’t use their brain, the problem is bad use of digitisation. The web provides a huge variety of resources and discussions. In fact the (social) web is a much more interactive medium than any book. If interaction is used correctly, it has the potential to provide better results than any single book.

Do you find the professor’s methodology of banning online resources productive? Should students be allowed to use online information?

I stumbled upon this link, which lists universities with the best free online courses. From MIT to Berkeley. Certainly a great source for anyone looking for a new hobby.

While thinking about the widely discussed ‘Davos Question‘, I asked myself if we are really a wise crowd. What makes a crowd (which under different circumstances behaves completely irrationally) make the right decisions? I leave aside for a moment my posts on aggregating information. Instead i want to point to some other interesting posts on collective intelligence and the wisdom of crowds:

• US Consumers: a wise crowd . An interesting example.
• If there’s wisdom in crowds - why don’t we let the masses rule? Learning from nature; with an insightful link
• Wisdom of the crowd and the bullwhip effect
• Mining the wisdom of crowds . An explanation of a powerful strategy

And the other side of the story:

• Maybe the crowd is not wise
• When crowds aren’t wise; the low fat diet cascade. When informational cascades go wrong.

The question still remains? Are we a wise crowd? And if so, will our views be heard?

In the last days I have seen several posts about the Google Knol project in relationship to wikipedia and its role in the aggregation of knowledge. I will list here all the links that I found concerning Knol, in order to get a spherical view of the subject. I must admit that most posts are severely criticizing Knol. I wonder if the reason is the blogosphere I have created around me - or if the positive views are actually so few (or so silent).

• Google’s official blog announces Knol
• Marshall Kirkpatric takes a short, objective view of Knol. Along with a small comment of Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki.
• Google Knol: Wikipedia with a face, or the new squido? My favourite (and most difficult) question about the Knol Project: Is highlighting the author the real answer? Also my posts Google’s Knol and the role of the author along with Authorship in the blogosphere are a couple of comments on the subject.
• Sizlopedia with the post “Google Knol free wikipedia” poses the question Knol= wikipedia + social networks. Why?
• Googlepedia. The term I love the most.
• Mashable with an interesting poll: Is google Knol a wikipedia killer? Also on mashable, a very thorough article “Google Knol more of the same“. Again talking about authorship and heavily criticizing Knol.
• Google Knol and the long trail. Bloggasm on ‘Google to create its own version of wikipedia‘.
• Nick Carr and ‘Google takes aim at wikipedia‘. Maybe the article that started the avalanche, with a list of very interesting comments.
• Wired about ‘Google’s Knol not being a threat to wikipedia‘
• Also two interesting views on the subject from wiredamp ‘knol and wikipedia begin to dance‘ and ‘Google to destroy wikipedia?‘
• Finally a fresh blog. Its title speaks for itself: savewikipeidia.wordpress.com
  

The entries of the above articles range from neutral to extremely critical to the Google Knol project. I agree with the opinion that Knol is not a threat wikipedia. They are targeting different groups. But, although I too was critical to Knol, I can see a positive side to the project.

• Authorship comes along with trustworthiness. If anyone of you is a student, you’ll understand the importance of this note.
• In some subjects neutrality is not the best solution. Debates and differences of opinion can occassionally bring better results.
• Knol has certainly more features. Comments, questions, rating, reviewing, referencing. These are important stuff. If used correctly can bring very good results. Someone commented on one of the above posts (sorry I don’t remember which post, or who commented), that knol takes the attributes of blog in wiki format. I like this feature.

The question that stands out, is how will people contribute to this community? And how will google handle this community?

If you have any additional posts about Knol and wikipedia, tell the group; leave a comment.