Siobhan Senier<\/a>, a professor at the University of New Hampshire, exemplifies one method used by educators to incorporate Wikipedia into their curricula.\u00a0 Senier, for a class on 21st<\/sup> Century Native American Literature, required student to write a Wikipedia article on a living indigenous author, conforming to \u201cboth the author\u2019s and Wikipedia\u2019s standards\u201d (para. 1).\u00a0 Finding Wikipedia\u2019s criterions more rigorous than those required by most professors (para. 9), Senier concludes that the editing structure and conversation ultimately increased the quality of student work and organic motivation, forcing pupils to converse and write within an informed and critical framework (para. 1).\u00a0 Senier also illustrates the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a writing tool by highlighting projects similar in scope or type to his own (paras. 5-7).\u00a0 His essay in Web Writing<\/i> thus argues for the effectiveness of Wikipedia post creation as a pedagogical tool.<\/p>\n Another, more uncommon, method for education using Wikipedia involves the fabrication of information or context to explore community response and connection.\u00a0 This style of pedagogy came under fire when it was made know that Professor T. Mills Kelly<\/a> of George Mason University formulated class assignments around manufacturing false Wikipedia entries (Appelbaum, para. 5).\u00a0 Kelly later changed his assignments, instead requiring students to falsify backstories \u2013 including fake documents and new, truthful Wikipedia pages \u2013 that were then launched on the social media site Reddit (para. 3).<\/p>\n Appelbaum explores the differences in the results of Kelly\u2019s two classes, asserting that the strong community nature of Reddit, focused on information exchange, contributed to the project\u2019s failure (para. 10).\u00a0 Comparatively, Wikipedia suffers from a weak community, insulating users from editors and inhibiting crowdsourcing <\/a>(para. 12).\u00a0 Appelbaum also looks at the importance of trust in web writing, explaining the influence of the sources of evidence \u2013 new versus experienced Wikipedia users \u2013 on how information is accepted, treated, and utilized on the Internet (para. 13).\u00a0 He states that an audience judges the legitimacy of sources, \u201cby accessing those who made them,\u201d (para. 14), which is why Kelly\u2019s first project was able to succeed in fooling a large portion of the population: by using Wikipedia as a guise of legitimacy.\u00a0 Appelbaum ultimately asserts that the make-up of online sources affects their susceptibility to informational hoaxes, and only touches the greater controversy regarding the falsification of data, addressed later in this narrative.<\/p>\n Primary Sources in the Classroom \u2013 Old Information in a New Form<\/b><\/p>\n The rise of the Web has also brought about the availability of primary sources on the Internet.\u00a0 Content management systems have allowed students to experience first-hand the challenges of emerging technology, and given the opportunity for students of all levels to learn how to evaluate original documents.\u00a0 Current literature addresses both the issues and results of these new primary source trends.<\/p>\n Professors in many disciplines are embracing the emerging trend of student involvement in document-driven digital humanities projects, focusing on the digitization and analysis of primary sources on the Web.\u00a0 Alisea Williams McLeod and Allison C. Marsh have both written articles extolling the values of such digital projects, including the difficulties they bring and the growth they provide.\u00a0 McLeod, by allowing her pupils to work on the transcription of the Register of Freedom<\/a>, found that students gained a greater understanding of history and politics because of the project (paras. 11, 16). \u00a0Despite this progress, she posited that the project suffered from students\u2019 \u201chesitance to buy into the idea of membership in the\u2026 site, reluctance that has translated into most of them not uploading\u201d their work (para. 6).\u00a0 McLeod concluded that this stemmed from a feeling of discomfort with the notion of their work being published online, even anonymously (para. 11).<\/p>\n Allison Marsh<\/a> was faced with similar difficulties with her students, who created \u201cdisastrous\u201d (280) online exhibits using a database of digitized objects.\u00a0 Marsh found a distinct lack of interest in digital technologies, with students complaining about their desire to be a \u201cregular historian\u201d instead (279).\u00a0 Marsh, throughout her article, retorts that such a path is \u201cno longer an option\u201d (279), citing the rise of the digital humanities and the increasing importance of computer technologies.\u00a0 She asserts that her students lacked skills in basic technology and digital writing, which were challenged by her project (280).\u00a0 Marsh ultimately argues that digital humanities projects help improve these lackluster skills, and challenge students to experience the new struggles and benefits inherent in a technologically growing world.<\/p>\n The second side of digital humanities projects is the user side \u2013 those who access such project sites for primary sources and analysis.\u00a0 These sources can be used by anyone with access to the Internet, and are used on the primary, secondary, and post-secondary levels for various purposes.\u00a0 Ultimately, the use of such project sites teaches users more about primary source use and analysis, and gives greater access to original documents than was ever before possible.<\/p>\n Carol A. Brown, a professor at East Carolina University, and Kaye Dotson, a doctoral student at the university, provide a case study performed at a high school to illustrate the benefits of digital humanities projects in secondary education.\u00a0 They assert that students of all levels need greater instruction in the standards and methods of modern research (30) and the evaluation of sources (31), areas of vital importance for digital writing.\u00a0 They also conclude that students can learn a lot from analysis of primary sources from a digital humanities project, especially relating to bias and methods of modern research and source location (34-35).\u00a0 This improvement of information literacy, although important, was a secondary goal compared to the study of \u201cteaching methods that enhanced ICT [Information and Communication Technology] skills for critical analysis of documents,\u201d (37).<\/p>\n New Views on Digital Writing<\/b><\/p>\n My experiences in the classroom, as well as my forays into digital writing, have convinced me that digital content is and will continue to be a major part of the American lifestyle.\u00a0 This can be seen in the popularity of social media and message-board sites, and well as the continuous expansion and use of sites such as Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary.\u00a0 As a result, I believe that the academic world will be best served by increasing the availability of secondary and primary sources online.\u00a0 This major format change necessitates comment on the integrity and usefulness of Internet sources.<\/p>\n Although Wikipedia is a useful reference tool, the academic community has a long-standing wariness of the site\u2019s content, based on the concept that any page can be edited by any person.\u00a0 Even though Senier points out that Wikipedia uses a strict editing framework, the work of the students of T. Mills Kelly shows the potential for intellectual abuse on the Internet.\u00a0 Events such as this hurt the reputation of such sites, and forces scholars to be on constant alert for falsified information on the Web.<\/p>\n Manipulation of a Wikipedia page, classifying the band Nickelback as a form of torture.<\/p><\/div>\n Professor Kelly\u2019s assignments, while engaging his students is digital writing, violated moral and academic ethics regarding informational integrity.\u00a0 In his first version of the assignment especially, information was strictly falsified on a public website with a reputation based on the truth of its content.\u00a0 This issue links to a greater conversation regarding standards of writing on the Internet, which are necessarily higher because of the ease of access and manipulation.\u00a0 Unlike printed information, the global editing capabilities inherent in digital writing lead to big risks for students and scholars.\u00a0 As a result, students of all disciplines must be cautious when using born-digital material.\u00a0 Students, therefore, should be better instructed on methods of cross-checking digital information using scholarly sources, as well as ways of identifying trustworthy sources.<\/p>\n The expansion of digital humanities projects, such as Dickinson College\u2019s Carlisle Industrial Indian School project<\/a>, has allowed students much greater access to primary source documents.\u00a0 Such projects allow students to work with original documents in new ways, aiding experiential learning while posing roadblocks to complete understanding.<\/p>\n Students growing up in today\u2019s world have an innate understanding of certain formats of information architecture.\u00a0 However, this does not always lend itself to the kinds of searching traditionally supported on academic websites.\u00a0 Hashtags, for example, allow students to sort tweets, Facebook posts, and the like, based on common themes and threads.\u00a0 It is my belief that the use of tags should be emphasized more in the creation of digital writing websites, as this will allow students native to the Internet to find pertinent information more easily.\u00a0 Contrastingly, if the information architecture of digital content sites becomes dissimilar from that of more popular sites, students will not be able to find needed information as efficiently, thus putting obstacles in the way of learning.<\/p>\n Similar to what should be done in regards to secondary sources, students must be instructed on the methods of finding and interpreting primary sources found online.\u00a0 This can be challenging, depending on the nature of student research.\u00a0 Size, for instance, is easily distorted and misrepresented online.\u00a0 This can be problematic in studies of size or proportion in artwork or historiography.\u00a0 Content, unfortunately, can also be manipulated because of the power of the Web and computer technology.\u00a0 Software such as Adobe Photoshop has propagated the tampering of documents, hence the commonality of conspiracies about forged information.\u00a0 This, again, calls for student instruction on how to judge the legitimacy of a source, as well as an emphasis on cross-contextual fact-checking.<\/p>\n Ultimately, digital writing and the expansion of the Internet has brought some powerful tools to today\u2019s students.\u00a0 However, students must be instructed on the issues and problems that plague Web content as a result of its ability to be edited by anyone.\u00a0 If students are able to truly learn these lessons, the academic community as a whole will see an increase in scholarship on the whole.\u00a0 This will come about because of the simple fact that anyone with an Internet connection will be able to participate in a global intellectual conversation.\u00a0 However, if lessons of web integrity and information ethics are not adopted by native Internet users, their scholastic abilities will be severely hampered.\u00a0 Echoing Marsh\u2019s assertion, I believe that academic work without the use of Web content and digital writing is simply not a possibility anymore.<\/p>\n Consulted Works<\/strong><\/p>\n Appelbaum, Yoni. \u201cHow the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit.\u201d The Atlantic<\/i>. 15 May 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.<\/p>\n Brown, Carol A., and Kaye Dotson. \u201cWriting Your Own History: A Case Study Using Digital Primary Source Documents.\u201d TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning<\/i> 51.3 (2007): 30\u201337. Print.<\/p>\n Marsh, Allison C.1. \u201cOmeka in the Classroom: The Challenges of Teaching Material Culture in a Digital World.\u201d Literary & Linguistic Computing<\/i> 28.2 (2013): 279\u2013282. Print.<\/p>\n Senier, Siobhan. \u201cIndigenizing Wikipedia: Student Accountability to Native American Authors on the World\u2019s Largest Encyclopedia.\u201d Web Writing: Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning<\/i>. 15 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.<\/p>\n Williams McLeod, Alisea. \u201cStudent Digital Research and Writing on Slavery: Problems and Possibilities.\u201d Web Writing: Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning<\/i>. 15 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Internet is arguably the largest single source of information ever created by humans.\u00a0 This incredible bank of information has grown since the rise in popularity of digital humanities and web writing, which both contribute large banks of primary and … Continue reading ![\"Manipulation](\"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/eC0nU.png\")
<\/a>