Discussion 1.2

Discussion 1.2 - 5 Is Wikipedia seriously flawed Is it...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR WEEK / SESSION 1.2 ARTICLE #1: Does Wikipedia Hurt Scholarship? 1. According to Thomas Locke, wikis promote and improve scholarship by empowering students to publish their opinions / thoughts and continuously refine them. Do you agree on this? 2. Will Wikipedia aid in improving the writing / editing / thinking skills and allow students to work collaboratively? 3. Have / are you made / making extensive use of Wikipedia for academic research purposes? If so, has it helped you achieve success (boost your academic performance / quality of your work)? 4. According to Dixie Anderson, students are becoming too dependednt on the Internet for obtaining research information. Do you agree with this assessment?
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 5. Is Wikipedia seriously flawed? Is it indeed a lazy technique / unreliable research tool? 6. Is it better to demand more credable, reliable and authorized materials as the basis for student research? Should Wikipedia add the disclaimer suggested by Anderson? 7. What other academic reserach sources do you buse? How do they compare to Wikipedia (better than, equal to, worse than)? 8. Does the fact that Wikipedia -being open to editing by anyone with Internet access- result in serious questions / doubt about the accuracy and reliability of its content? 9. Will editing of Wikipedia provide for student motivation and enhancement of writing and analytical reasoning skills?...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online