Comments on: Wikipedia or wickedpedia? http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/ a few graffiti on the wall of life Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:06:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Peter Davies http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/#comment-572 Peter Davies Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:30 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/#comment-572 What is the substance of the question here? If Wikipedia is the only source used, then I would agree that there is a huge problem. If students are using it as the place where an interpretation of the argument is summarised and other sources are referenced, then use it. All of us students (disciples?) do well to check our sources and references; if we are postmodernists then “truth”, like our credit card, can be our flexible friend; if we are rooted in a dogmatic tradition, exegetical life is so much easier. Educationalists may qualify what I say here, however, informal comment from some teachers I know suggests that there is a significant lack of the grasp of conceptual thinking and reasoning and use of logical process in argument. In other words, students have been prepared, sponge-like, to believe much of what they have been told and not how to test what is put before them. Lest pride develop, I turn to the philosopher and former newspaper editor, Tony Livesey. In his days heading up “The Sport” he dismissed all “Guardian” readers for reading it in order to be told what to believe. Reflect a moment. It is easy to slip into a mode that accepts that which is placed before us as being authoritative because it feeds us as we wish to be fed. Wikipedia may to that for students, but so can David Bosch, Walter Brueggemann and the other heroes of our various traditions for us if we allow them uncritically to control rather than command our attention. The question that students, and we as disciples of a journey of faith, do well to address is to discern the value of having an open mind in order to know when to close it firmly on that which for us is truth to be believed. For me, that is the substance of the question. What is the substance of the question here? If Wikipedia is the only source used, then I would agree that there is a huge problem. If students are using it as the place where an interpretation of the argument is summarised and other sources are referenced, then use it. All of us students (disciples?) do well to check our sources and references; if we are postmodernists then “truth”, like our credit card, can be our flexible friend; if we are rooted in a dogmatic tradition, exegetical life is so much easier. Educationalists may qualify what I say here, however, informal comment from some teachers I know suggests that there is a significant lack of the grasp of conceptual thinking and reasoning and use of logical process in argument. In other words, students have been prepared, sponge-like, to believe much of what they have been told and not how to test what is put before them.

Lest pride develop, I turn to the philosopher and former newspaper editor, Tony Livesey. In his days heading up “The Sport” he dismissed all “Guardian” readers for reading it in order to be told what to believe. Reflect a moment. It is easy to slip into a mode that accepts that which is placed before us as being authoritative because it feeds us as we wish to be fed. Wikipedia may to that for students, but so can David Bosch, Walter Brueggemann and the other heroes of our various traditions for us if we allow them uncritically to control rather than command our attention.

The question that students, and we as disciples of a journey of faith, do well to address is to discern the value of having an open mind in order to know when to close it firmly on that which for us is truth to be believed. For me, that is the substance of the question.

]]>