wikipedia Archives - Will Richardson

SCENE I

(Tucker and I at the computer getting ready to get some info on how to throw the boomerang I just brought him back from Australia.)

Me: So where do you want to start?

Tucker: (Already typing “www.yout…”)

Me: Wait a sec. (Trying to sound wise.) Before we go there, why don’t we see if we can get some background? (I’m thinking physics, aerodynamics, etc.)

Tucker: (Keeps typing “…ube.com)

Me: Tuck. Seriously. (Grabbing mouse.) Where could we go to find some other info about boomerangs?

Tucker: (Sighs) Ok. (Starts typing “www.wikiped…”)

Me: I just think we might find some interesting background and stuff.

Tucker: (Clicks in search line and types in “Boome…” and I notice for the first time that Wikipedia now has partial spelling drop downs.)

Me: Hey, look at that!

Tucker: What?

Me: You can just find the word in the list now. Pretty cool.

Tucker: They’ve had that for like a month, Dad.

Me: They have? (I look at him to see if he’s smiling, but he looks serious.) Hmmm…

Tucker: Boomerang. There it is. (He clicks.) So what do you want to know?

Me: Well, how about we see if… (Before I can finish, he clicks on “Throwing Technique.”) Yeah. There ya go. What does it say?

Tucker: “A left-handed boomerang circles towards the right, and a right-handed boomerang circles towards the left. Most sport boomerangs are in the range of about 2.5 to 4 ounces. The range on most of these is between 25 and 40 yards/metres. A right- or left-handed boomerang can be thrown with either hand, but the flight direction will depend upon the boomerang, not the thrower…” Aw, c’mon Dad. This is boring. (Starts typing “www.yout…”)

Me: (Chagrined) Ok, ok. I just thought maybe that would help. (We watch as page changes.)

Tucker: Here! How about this one. (He clicks the top link.)

Me: Now Tuck, you know, you should probably take a second to try to figure out which videos might be the most…

(Video begins to play.)

(Both of us laugh hysterically.)

Tucker: Oh my god! Let’s watch it again. (He clicks the play button and we replay it, stopping as girl’s legs flail into the air. More laughing.)

Me: (Gaining composure.) So, it looks like you just throw it like you would most anything else.

Tucker: (Clicks on next video, which shows three guys throwing boomerangs at the beach.) Yeah, dad. That doesn’t look hard. Let’s go! (Grabs boomerang and heads for door.)

Me: Wait! Tuck! Go over in the field next door. Don’t throw it in our yard where you lost the last one. (Remembering his tears after first toss of the boomerang from last year’s trip to Australia ended up in bamboo patch never to be seen again.)

Tucker: (Half way out the door.) Ok!

SCENE II:

(Finally leaving house five minutes later, looking over to the big field next door where I see him running toward the house.)

Me: Hey Tuck! What’s up?

Tucker: Um…I need the baseball.

Me: The baseball? Why?

Tucker: (Look of angst on his face.) Um…

Me: Are you kidding me?

Tucker: I’m sorry dad! It just went really high and now it’s stuck in a tree. But I can get it. Where’s the ball?

SCENE III:

(Twenty minutes later.)

Me: Tuck. It’s just too high up there. We’re going to have to wait for a stiff breeze.

Tucker: Sorry Dad. (He smiles.) You want to go watch that video again?

Me: Grrrrr….

In three weeks of February, the Barack Obama entry in Wikipedia had almost 2 million views and was the seventh most visited (and, really, second most visited in terms of content) article on the site. John McCain‘s had 1.1 million. Hillary Clinton, who apparently more people “know” about, had about 422,000. In those same three weeks, the Wikipedia home page got over 140 million views.

The point? People are turning to Wikipedia in large numbers to learn about the topics that are of interest and importance to them. Many of them, no doubt, are kids. Go figure.

Now look, I know as people read down the entire list, there are entries that might make some uncomfortable. Sites that will make some say “See! We can’t let our kids be getting wrong information about THAT!” or in some cases, any information at all. I hear that.

But those kids who go to schools where Wikipedia is blocked or passed off as a non-credible resource or not in any way addressed in the curriculum are no doubt reading Wikipedia anyway without any context from us as to what it is and without any guidance from us as to how to use it well. And so, instead of seizing an opportunity to model for them the power of participation, to help them understand the importance of editing, and to give them a real sense of how the collaborative world works by involving them in the negotiation of the “truth” that those articles represent, we’re simply enabling our kids to use Wikipedia badly.

I’ll say it again. Errors are everywhere. You might as well shut down the Internet, unsubscribe to every newspaper and magazine your library gets, and turn off the television set if the concern is that kids might be getting inaccurate or biased information. If we’re not raising a generation of reader/editors, we’re not doing our jobs. Wikipedia can help in that work.

And, just in case you haven’t seen me ref this before, here’s hoping you’re not using this Physics textbook from the venerable Oxford University Press in your school if you have a problem with Wikipedia.