One year ago today, September 19, 2007, this blog was born into the online world.

surprise-happy-birthday-giftsAt the time I launched it I wasn’t really sure what to expect or how this experiment would play out. Overall, I have enjoyed writing this blog, though I certainly wish I was able to contribute to it more regularly.

However, my philosophy is “quality over quantity.” I would rather wait to post something substantive than just add more noise to the already overloaded Internet. Hopefully the posts I’ve made have, in some way, contributed positively to the individuals who have read them and, perhaps to the larger academic community.

Statistically speaking, here is some basic info about the blog:

  • Total views: 7,169
  • Busiest day: 126 — Wednesday, January 23, 2008
  • Views today: 14
  • Totals
    • Posts: 38
    • Comments: 34
    • Categories: 16
    • Tags: 858

Developing this blog has been educational and inspirational — I find myself constantly looking for information to distribute or knowledge to share using it.

I have used it twice as an educational repository and tool: once for an English class at DeVry University and another time for my UCSB Extension course. Both times enabled me, and my students, to explore the power of blogging on multiple levels. I hope to continue contributing to it and finding unique and clever ways to leverage the technology.

Speaking of which, WordPress is an amazing tool — bravo to those who make it all work. I have never before experienced such a seamless and mutlifaceted web-based content management system. Using WordPress has definitely been a significant part of why my first year blogging was so positive.

In any case, I am looking forward to “year two” and outdoing my effort in “year one!”

If you’ve ever been curious what a Scotsman wears under his kilt, don’t as Wikipedia!

According to a June 21, 2008 Scotsman article by Martyn McLaughlin the Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC)contends that Wikipedia and similar online research sources were to blame for Scotland’s falling exam pass rates.

Excerpts of the original article follows:

Wikipedia and other online research sources were yesterday blamed for Scotland’s falling exam pass rates. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and Internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.

The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information.

Eleanor Coner, the SPTC’s information officer, said: “Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching. The sad fact is most children these days use libraries for computers, not the books. We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.

“It’s dangerous when the Internet is littered with opinion and inaccurate information which could be taken as fact.”

Alan Johnson, the UK Education Secretary, was lambasted earlier this year for suggesting the website could be a positive educational tool for children.

He described the Internet as “an incredible force for good in education”, singling out Wikipedia for praise.

A disclaimer on Wikipedia states “it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information.”

Boasting over two million articles, Wikipedia is used by about 6 per cent of Internet users, significantly more than the traffic to more authorised sites, such as those of newspapers. Its articles are mainly edited by a team of volunteers.

Wikipedia was really a trailblazer in the current trend of virtual communities of practice, an area of my academic research interests. However, I know full well that whatever I read might not be accurate.

I once heard it said that Wikipedia is a great place to start your research, but a bad place to end it. I feel that is an accurate assessment. I personally enjoy exploring Wikipedia and often find I end up on a page I never imagined I would find.

As an adjunct instructor, I go to great lengths to explain why Wikipedia is not an ideal source for research information — precisely for the reasons mentioned above.  I explain that they can begin their research at Wikipedia — as it is usually one of the top five pages to appear following a Google search — but I tell them to follow the links to the resources cited on the page itself.

However, I am admittedly a bit of a hypocrite as I frequently link to Wikipedia pages in this blog due to the ease with which pages relevant to my topics can be found. Without question, Wikipedia pages are a great clearinghouse of information — a true crossroads of knowledge — and for that reason alone the site is a useful tool.

But, its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness — one that will forever exist so long as the site remains as it is now.

Carrot-TopI recently demonstrated how easy it is to change a page on Wikipedia to one of my English classes by changing the Wikipedia page for comedian Carrot Top to indicate that he had died unexpectedly on that date.

I was even able to change to biographical information in the box that appears in the upper-right-hand corner of the page.

In fairness to Wikipedia, one of their editors discovered the false entry and deleted it within seven minutes.

Still, seven minutes is plenty of time for someone researching comedians to have found the page and added a citation to their paper that Carrot Top had indeed died.

So I really can see both sides of this issue — though as an educator I make sure my students understand the pros and cons of Wikipedia. Just like the students mentioned in the Scotsman article, I am likely to conduct my research virtually instead of physically in a library.

It is hard to not do so with resources such as ProQuest making almost anything you need available at the click of a few keys.

The main issue is to teach students how to properly conduct research and to ensure they understand why certain sources are more credible that others. Sometimes this can be difficult to communicate, especially when it comes to controversial topics for which there might not be a great deal of mainstream research materials available.

Clearly technology offers education an immesurable advantage, but the key is to learn to control it without letting it control us.

One of my research interests is the metoric rise social networking services: LinkedIn.com, Facebook.com, MySpace.com and others. Typical social network services use software to help users create on-line networks with people who share interests and activities  or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others.

My particular curiosity is learning how entrepreneurs and small business owners use social networking services to effectively make contacts, share information and build business.

So it was particularly interesting to me when I stumbled across a great post on a blog called “The Thinking Stick” titled “Moving from Consumer to Producer of Information.” It focused on the rise of social networking sites and blogs as the primary means of entertainment, information gathering and knowledge production (primarily among 18 to 24 year olds).

The blog presents research conducted by MySpace and reported by Netimperative this past January as follows:

  • Social networks are now so integral to daily life, for some, they have surpassed the TV as the entertainment media of choice.
  • Nearly half of 18-24 year old social networkers (45%) told Future Laboratory researchers that if they had 15 minutes of spare time they would choose spend it on social networking sites rather than watching TV, reading, talking on their mobile, or playing video games.  
  • The impact of this trend is so significant that a quarter (25%) of respondents state that the rise in social networks has decreased the amount of traditional television they consume.

Clearly, social networking sites have evolved between simple socialization and are emerging as an entirely new cultural paradigm. In fact, they are now even becoming relevant to business.