Tilapia and other Fishy Wiki Discoveries

I have a number of admissions to make. The first of which is not the least. It is a ridiculously busy week at school. One-on-ones, growth plans, Individualized Program Plans, parent meetings, and a PD Day Monday. I am excited to report that six colleagues and myself planned and presented the Professional Development Day for our whole staff based on technologies we use successfully with our classes. I presented on the use of Delicious.com for teacher collaboration and as a tool for students (I’m a true convert – look at me go!!!). Our wrap-up session for the day included recording our needs and desires for future sessions on Wordle.net. It was an exciting day, well received by staff, and motivating for all. It was a risk to change Professional Development practice, and it did require a great deal of planning. Yet in spite of all the excitement this week, I approached my exploration of wikis this week with enthusiasm. The result was less than satisfying for both my students and myself. Please accept this as my disclaimer: This entry may not be as cheerful and optimistic as those previous! :)

Before this week, I will admit, I could count on one hand the number of times I had visited Wikipedia.org. And the probability of me creating my own wiki, or a wiki for my students was nil. I didn’t even know how to begin researching this week’s topic. I have learned a great deal this week, and have had a variety of experiences with wikis (some positive, and some I will struggle to put into thoughtful and academic words). Where to begin...

Using Wikipedia.com
The other night my husband and I were cooking tilapia. I will tell you honestly, dear colleagues, that EDES 501 was the furthest thing from my mind. As I conducted my usual mealtime frenzy to quickly concoct something before one of us passes out from lack of nourishment, he asked "What exactly is tilapia?"
"I don’t know. A fish. A white fish. Probably saltwater."
[insert unspoken comments here such as ‘Who cares?! Fry faster, and we can eat and talk about something more interesting].
"I’ll be right back!" he replies, excitedly.
Lo and behold, he returns a moment later with my laptop and perches (no fishy pun intended) beside the stove to research tilapia. He finds pictures, explores clickthroughs and links to see related species, habitat, etc. In fact, there was so much information available, he was able to quench his thirst for knowledge (okay, perhaps my word choice is a little ‘fishy’) until the meal was ready. And he was as satisfied as could be (my husband made me edit the ‘happy as a clam’ reference here, in true wiki-style).

Truthfully, although it will shock any teacher-librarian who reads the site, I was satisfied knowing that the Tilapia in Chile Lime Butter we were about to eat was a delicious fish with white flesh. I wasn’t curious and didn’t need to know all about the geneology of tilapia. But, my husband did, and I have to credit him for finding the information he wanted in a quick and easy fashion.
But, given my bitter tone of the week, I’m not planning to give him much credit for his discovery.
Instead, I credit the 500+ people who had contributed to or edited the Wikipedia.org page on ‘Tilapia’ since it was created by OlofE on September 21, 2002. I credit such intellectual writers of our time as Versageek, CanisRufus, Judge Nutmeg, Geronimo20, Staffwaterboy and Zzuuzz. Yes, these academics, and others have all contributed to Wikipedia – the Web 2.0 academic version of the ongoing message on the bathroom stall wall. With one exception: Judge Nutmeg and his techno-saavy gang know a lot about Tilapia! And when MidgleyDJ added something that the others disagreed with, they deleted that entry and reverted to the last version that Judge Nutmeg had edited.

What Web 2.0 is capable of
This is the miracle of Wikipedia, and the magic of 2.0 in action. Anyone with internet access and a login can contribute to the definitions and explanations available on Wikipedia. Will Richardson calls Wikipedia "the poster child for the collaborative construction of knowledge and truth that the new, interactive Web facilitates." He goes on to remind us that "no one person, or even small group of people could produce Wikipedia, as currently edits appear at the rate of 400,000 a day. Every day, thousands of people who have no connection to one another engage in the purposeful work of negotiating and creating truth. They do this with no expectation that their contributions will be in some way acknowledged or compensated, and they do it undertsanding that what they contribute can be freely edited or modified or reused by anyone else for any purpose. The extent to which this happens and to which it is successful is truly inspiring." (Richardson, 2008, pg57).

I wholeheartedly agree with Will Richardson, and am in awe of both the idea and the capabilities of the site. It is the true collaborative Read/Write web that Tim Berners-Lee had hoped to create in 1989. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Wikipedia is that with all the access and editing on the site, it remains largely accurate. I am excited about trying an experiment with my students much like that of University of Buffalo Professor Alex Halavais conducted (Richardson, 2008, pg. 56), planting errors at several places on Wikipedia and monitoring how quickly they are corrected. I think it would be an excellent demonstration of the spirit and function of Wikipedia – that the collective aims to maintain an accurate and reliable source to be used by others.

Using Wikipedia.org with Students
The very nature of Wikipedia necessitates caution. As with Google, many students (and adults) use Wikipedia as a research tool. This came as a surprise to many of our teaching staff this week, but when I discussed it with my students, the majority were already aware, and some even seemed proud. It seemed that they felt some rebellious ownership over such a powerful Internet tool. Still, as a research tool, Wikipedia compels us as educators and teacher-librarians to encourage students to use multiple sources. Through awareness of the nature of Wikipedia students can learn best practices of cross-checking and evaluating sources. On the flip-side, students could also discuss their responsibility and accountability in contributing to the Read/Write Web, knowing that others will read, and perhaps rely on their wiki posts, blog entries, etc.



Creating your Own Wiki
(a.k.a. how to single-handedly crush a group of motivated writers)
In the spirit of exploration and play, I was excited to create a wiki for my students this week. I wanted them to contribute, review and edit definitions and explanations of trees as a summary project for our grade six Trees and Forests unit. If we started the page together, then each added ten facts that we felt had been missed, and then edited each others’ entries, we could negotiate our understanding of the unit of study.

After some brief exploration early in the week, I decided to create an account at two wiki hosts: PBWiki and Wikispaces. PBWiki appealed to me because it seemed to cater mindfully to educators, and Wikispaces is widely used, and I have seen several wikis in action created there.
Imagine my students’ excitement when I announce at the SmartBoard that I have made a wiki for them, but that it is blank. It is their job to decide what is important and what will be included – they are the authors. Eagerly, we work quickly to add about twenty facts to the ‘Tree’ page on our wiki (rm16defines.wikispaces.com). They are impressed at how easy it is. They are even excited about their homework! "Use your notes and activity pages at home tonight to compile a list of the ten facts about trees. Tomorrow you can add it to our wiki."

Most students came with their homework completed on Wednesday (‘most’ – they are still typical students, even when they are motivated). We quickly handed out the laptops, and navigated our way to the wiki. It is important to note here, that amidst a busy week I was as excited as they were. I expected that some valuable thought, evaluation and critical thinking would be happening. However, in my excitement and haste, I was not knowledgeable enough about the technology. (Herein lies a danger of online experimentation and exploration – some technologies are deceptively simple to get up and running, but one still needs to spend time investigating and learning about settings before subjecting students to the technology.) I had the students sign in to the wiki, as I didn’t want guests to be able to edit our page. Within ten minutes we figured out that each time we saved we were overwriting each other’s work. Although the students were disappointed, they were resilient, logged out of the wiki and began typing again. However, we continued to overwrite simultaneous entries even after we were logged out. By the end of the hour, we had just six new lines of writing to show for 26 students’ efforts. After several hours of work from me later, I sheepishly admit that I can’t figure out how to change that problem. If anyone can post some help, I’d be grateful!!

Implications for Teaching
-If a wiki is to function as the tool is meant to, it must be made public. If it is kept private or password-protected, it seems to function just like a blog.
-Students need to be comfortable with typing and editing on the computer in order to make the process smooth.
-Wikis offer a great tool for negotiating truth and evaluating our understanding. They also provide opportunity for discussion and critical thinking
-Wikipedia.org is useful as one source for students and staff seeking information. It is important to inform students of the nature of Wikipedia, and to encourage them to use best practices for research such as using multiple sources.
-I had not previously thought of using wikis in small groups as Lee Lefever of CommonCraft.com suggested. Students could use/create wikis in small groups to plan a writing project (e.g. writing newsletter articles) or planning for a class celebration or field trip. Writing in small groups would also allow students to have more opportunities to contribute and edit.
-I really like Amy Bowllan’s ideas in A Wiki Gives a Worthy Book New Life (School Library Journal, 9/1/2008). Our grade six teaching team is currently developing and teaching a study of non-fiction materials and reading strategies. We are each developing and revising the lessons as we go, and it would be great to track and share these changes as a team.
-Amy Bowllan’s article also prompted me to consider using wikis as a way of stimulating and encouraging discussion of reader responses in Literature Circles. However, in this case, I am still not clear how a wiki would serve this purpose better than a blog. I found myself asking this question a number of times this week.
-We are fortunate at our school to have access to 60 wireless laptop computers to allow students to access the Internet and inclass resources simultaneously. If all work had to be completed through one central teacher computer or SmartBoard the dynamics of wikis in our classroom would be stilted.

Conclusion
Clearly, my exploration of wikis is not complete. I have many questions remaining, and my lack of understanding leaves me wondering about the relevance of wikis in some instances. At the very least, I can continue to invite my students to use wikis as a resource and to evaluate the information available therein. It frustrates me that for the first time in this course, I found myself sharing some of the sentiments and frustrations that many staff feel when the are faced with new technologies. My personal challenge for this course has been to genuinely give everything fair consideration and attempts. I don’t feel yet that I have done so with wikis. My exploration of this Web 2.0 tool will continue for a while to come.