Becoming a wikipedia editor

13 Things blog suggested that we go to wikipedia and look up a topic we knew about:

look up a topic you have interest in or know something about (it can be anything...knitting, dog care, astronomy, Greek mythology...there are over 3 billion articles, you are sure to find at least one you are interested in or know something about). Do you have anything to add? If so, click "Edit" on the upper left hand side and add your knowledge.

So I went to . . . amigurumi, of course!

The entry was quite short. . . I wondered what would bulk it up. One could write about the best type of yarn to use (cheap acrylic is best), or about the eye/mouth placement (low on the face for highest Kawaii quotient).

Of course, one could even write about Kawaii--cuteness in Japanese. 可愛い

(The amigurumi entry is linked with the "cuteness" Kawaii entry . . . )

But I noticed that each statement had a footnote. I wondered if one could add statements without footnotes. I mean, using cheap acrylic yarn is . . . common knowledge to those of us who make amigurumi. The mighty "F" hook is always used with worsted-weight cheap yarn--everyone knows that. But is that OK in wikipedia? I've noticed recently lots of "citation needed for this" notes in the entries.

And maybe these details are too technical.

I liked that the amigurumi entry noted that amigurumi "have no practical use." Or, as I always say, they are "totally useless items."

Wacky wikis

I used a wiki for the first time this past spring term. I felt my Advanced Writing Workshop students needed to learn about professional writing for Web 2.0, and I figured it would be better for THEM to do the research than for me to do it and give it to them. So the students brainstormed various topics--professional writing for Facebook was the most popular!--and divided them up. Then they did some web research on the topics and created wiki pages for each one. First they just dumped their info on the page; later, I had them integrate and synthesize the material so it wasn't just a patchwork.

That last part was the hardest: synthesizing all the material. Students seem to think if they find, copy, and paste material, they've "researched" it. Always has been that way, but web 2.0 makes that process really easy. Synthesizing the material is still hard. I need to think more about how I conduct that assignment if I do it again so that it's not just a patchwork of cut and paste.

I use Wikipedia as a "first source" when I'm finding out about something I know nothing about. Like pop culture!