We are halfway through this experiment. The discussion with students has been fantastic, and they are covering the topic well (while juggling other classes, including dealing with my slightly-tougher-than-I-intended midterm in the Evolution lecture course...). However we continue to struggle with removing the personal barriers of information that students (all people, really) are accustomed to when they are being held responsible for that information. The students tend to only edit within a page of their own making on the topic they are focused on, and I'm having to encourage them to cross-link, to blend, to see when topics are actually intermingling or need to reach out further. And, really, this is a microcosmic view of how science tends to work, unfortunately! What is intriguing about a class like this is that even a biologist like myself is having to stretch a bit to understand how different studies are done, how they affect our understanding of what will happen to marine species under conditions of climate change, and even how much to trust the different models of proposed climate change.
One of my graduate students recently added to her dissertation proposal the idea that contributing to sites like Wikipedia is a form of outreach. Not only would I back her up on this, but it is good for our own particular science (or field of study) as well. While any general, openly-edited resource will have some question marks about some of its information (not really any different from peer-reviewed work, see the paper by Fang et al linked below), as we interact with these bigger databases and resources, everything from
Wikipedia to
GenBank to
Encyclopedia of Life or
GBIF, we have to address how our own work interfaces with these larger bodies of information, and sometimes - shockingly! - we might learn something or come up with a new idea.
Comments