shows the importance of engag-ing with rather than ventriloquizing sources
I wonder what he means by "ventriloquizing". Does he mean us saying the sources verbatim?
23 Matching Annotations
- Sep 2018
-
parlormultimedia.com parlormultimedia.com
-
-
“comic books have been at the top of the student preference list for sometime, yet it seems that they may not count as ‘serious’ reading material” (47)
Why not?
-
However, some of what happens in making successful contributions to Wikipedia parallels some of what happens in producing effective research-based writing.
I agree, especially if you're covering a broad topic with a lot of angles.
-
discover sources in your school’s library. Yo
Didn't really think about using it like that.
-
Wikipedia gave me a rough sketch of the general background. From here, I used the infor-mation I gained from Wikipedia to search for books form [sic] the . . . Library. (“Research” 2–3)
Hence Wikipedia being useful as a jumping-off point.
-
They also frequently include “further reading,” “ex-ternal link,” or “see also” lists, as shown in figure 2.
That's usually where the other cited sources come from.
-
table of contents
My favorite part of each Wikipedia page that directs me to the information I need the most.
-
(1) ideas, (2) links to other texts, and (3) search terms.
Usually how I use Wikipedia as well.
-
Teachers have concerns about you using Wikipedia as a source for another reason—one that has less to do with Wikipedia itself and more to do with the kinds of texts you are expected to use in research-based writing.
Maybe in college but i don't know about that in high school.
-
leading to complete confusion
Depending on how significant the change is, I doubt it would lead to COMPLETE confusion.
-
the article didn’t stay the same for long given the unfolding details of Jackson’s death. As a result of such change-ability, Wikipedia articles are unreliable; the article you cite today may not exist in that form tomorrow.
The same could be argued for news articles online. There are updates with everything. It's normal and not a bad thing.
-
“This article is about a person who has recently died. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person’s death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known”
Maybe highlights the impermanence of facts and the division between those who know about facts and those who don't?
-
he claims that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Britannica
That's interesting because in high school, Britannica was more acceptable to use as a source than Wikipedia.
-
articles can display incorrect information.
I might be wrong, but articles displaying incorrect information are more ubiquitous than people think, and it's not a problem only from Wikipedia.
-
Wikipedia is easy to access and usually pretty easy to understand.
The main reason why Wikipedia is the one of the most popular websites ever created.
-
The first way you may think to use Wikipedia is as a source—that is, as a text you can quote or paraphrase in a paper.
Schools I've been taught at never mentioned that you could do this. I like how this is challenging our perceptions over what is a good source. Just because our past teachers said it was not a good way to research, but now we are doing a complete 180 and now it is acceptable.
-
reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing.
Just like peer review in school
-
so your writing will likely be more overtly persuasive than a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia never really takes a stance on the pages they write. They just provide information and facts.
-
Wikipedia articles are a different genre than academic research-based writing. Wikipedia seeks to emulate an ency-clopedia (that’s where the “pedia” part of the name comes from) and, thereby
I mentioned this in an earlier annotation. Wikipedia doesn't work under a thesis, but offers the information in an accessible and coherent way.
-
My goal is not to mandate one correct, universally applicable process of research-based writing. There is none
Very liberating point.
-
The process of successfully contributing to a Wikipedia article, in other words, parallels the process of successfully creating a piece of research-based writing
That is true. The information has to come from somewhere, which is why Wikipedia's information amalgamates information from previous sources in a more condensed and accessible way, much like a research paper anyways. However, instead of working with a thesis or main idea, Wikipedia just gives you the information.
-
it is more helpful to address ways to use it effectively than to ig-nore it (and ignoring it precludes some potentially beneficial uses of Wikipedia anyway)
I agree with this. A lot of people in the school system prior to college were taught "never to use Wikipedia because it's not accurate". While that's true in comparison, this part challenges all we've learned in terms of how to perceive Wikipedia. This is a great point.
-
I actually do think Wikipedia is an amazing thing. It is the first place I go when I’m looking for knowledge
I think it's true for a lot of people that when they are starting to research something, Wikipedia is a great jumping-off point to start researching. They also provide links and citations on the bottom of each of their pages, which lead to more "credible" sites and sources.
-