Talk:Technology Matters 2005

You participated yesterday as contributors to our log and today as readers on NWP Wiki. What possible issues became apparent? Consider this in terms of yourself as a user, for your site, and for your students? What problems did you encounter? What additional training would you need?

I like the ability to correct an entry.

I most see possibilities for all of the following: Site management, state network, dialoguing on frameworks, classroom applications, and more important than all of that, showing other teachers this possibility.

I really liked the Wiki. It was really fun to do and I think that my students would enjoy it as well. It would be a neat way to create a daily log of events each day of the SI or any other event that we may attend. It is a creative and fun way to write about the day.--Lilsparky98 13:00, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know how to start an article. This would be a fun "day in the life" of my classroom kind of an activity.

Issues
Memory...my issue right now is with my memory. I left yesterday afternoon with every intention of adding my two cents (yes, I know I can still do that but would it have the same effect...would anybody really see it?). Had the facilitator's meeting until 6, took off for dinner, returned from dinner, walked to Starbuck's to grab a cup of decaf, loaded pics, answered email, went to bed. It's probably quite obvious to you now that I never, ever, ever thought again about my contribution to the wiki and I'm horribly ashamed and embarassed about this (but I should probably be more embarassed about the fact that I might not have spelled embarassed correctly). So, in order to make up for my lack of participation in this participatory technology I'm trying to write profusely in this section hoping to avoid the inevitable jeers and sidelong looks that people give someone who doesn't pull their weight in a collaborative endeavor.

You know what they say about people like me.

"Every group has one," you'll say, referring to the fact that I was the person in the group that did absolutely nothing to contribute to the fabulous, finished, feather-in-somebody's fedora project.

I'm sorry. I'll try to do better today.

--Mccomas 12:58, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that a conversation might drift, much like a riverboat, or participants could lead the topic away from the original focus. Training and practice also seems an essential; just sending someone to a Wiki community wouldn't work. Finally, the ability to change and revise makes this a great tool to use with writers - especially when they're not in the same room, or when they're working on something over time.

Dave

I find myself doing a lot of fact-checking, and the dangers of revisionist history have become apparent. I think using Wiki sites could lead to an interesting discussion with students about perspective- that even when they read something in a supposedly neutral textbook, it is still always written from an author's perspective. It's human nature to write to our own agendas, and to make errors. This means that kids have to be good critical readers, and not believe everything they read/ hear on TV (even the "News"). --Areilley 13:00, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

collaborating
You participated yesterday as contributors to our log and today as readers on NWP Wiki. What possible issues became apparent? Consider this in terms of yourself as a user, for your site, and for your students? What problems did you encounter? What additional training would you need?

I was struck yesterday by the notion of ownership of both words and knowledge. There's a certain anonymity to the wiki that is initially unsettling. Who owns the piece? We all own the piece? Who contributed what? It's not clear. Does it matter? No... I guess it doesn't. I ponder on 2 snatches of conversation from yesterday: Will, telling me it doesn't matter who wrote a wiki entry-- he just evaluates it based on his own understanding. Juxtaposed with John telling us how his academic colleagues think all his work on the web in online coursework isn't bona fide, it's just a "hobby." These colleagues would shudder at the notion of unattributed /unattributable writing. What will this all look like in just 5 years? In 10 years? --Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)--Nbernasconi 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

At the classroom level I like a couple of the Wiki features. For instance, the feature we saw about viewing the history of drafts has a lot of potential when talking about a writer's process.--Csloan 13:01, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I am --MikeRecord 13:02, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC) and what I need more training on is how to set everything up. So, now I now how to blog...I still don't know how to set a blog up for my site. I know how to wiki, but I want to know how to set up a wikicity for my site. And I'm sure the same is true for all the stuff we're learning this week.

The ability to correct/edit is powerful. In order to use it with students, a discussion of computer ethics would be a spring board for classroom etiquette in a wiki. Learning about this discussion piece is a useful tool for classmate response to a piece.

For my site, perhaps this could be a way facilitators plan agendas, writing prompts, and other institute "stuff". Actually, I might use this in creating a discussion about what people want on our new website as an introduction to wikis. --Hetrick 13:02, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I liked the wiki and see uses for it at our site for online discussions somewhat replacing meetings. I see it as a method to stay in touch with new TCs to give even more continuity to the program. This could become a great discussion board to share ideas and to continue the camaraderie from the summer.

What I've learned ...
Disregardless of the fact that I missed the big discussions of battles between river rats and giant squid that happened last night, I have noticed that even my notion of what it means to read an online text has changed because of the context of wiki. For instance, rather than just noticing some things about the wonderfully-written account of yesterday, I really wanted to go ahead and change one or two things (eg, my internal wordsmith really wants the text to use "cap'n" instead of "capt'n). Why is this? Just because when reading a wiki, the assumption I have is that the work is there for me (and anybody else) to change at will. Love those big shifts in thinking! --Peter Kittle, Dogsbody 13:03, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hypertext links do add another dimension to the wiki--just as Dave mentioned in this discussion. When is it appropriate to make hypertext links? Are there times when we COULD hypertext link a concept in the Wiki but choose not to?--Cellen2 13:03, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)Cindy Adams

Ownership
When I think of what happened yesterday, I keep hearing the conversation about ownership. Who owns anything in a WIKI? What does that mean? What struck me most yesterday is why we would care about owning words and text and ideas. To what end? I mean, I understand why university professors want to maintain ownership because if they don't, how will they get tenure or promotion (at least if they work at a research university). Without their individual names on the articles, how can they claim it? How can it be counted up?

But what if we wrote our articles in a WIKI? If lots of intelligent people went into making this piece? It would be, in some ways, the ultimate peer review system, where the peers contribute their knowledge where they have it. But no one would own this text and no one could claim it for personal advancement. But the text itself, the excellent research and its distribution -- that would be what mattered -- the ideas themselves, out there circulating, open for anyone to read and learn from. Academic would become, indeed, public intellectuals -- and it wouldn't be about who owns what words -- just making the world a better place.

Or perhaps I'm wildly naive. ..

--Wpbanks 13:05, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... elephants in Alabama. Maybe it is no more implausible than The Crimson Tide devolving from The British Redcoats who putatively offered the "the thin red line" of civilization against the colonials. Redcoats on elephants. Very auspicious. Hindu temples sometimes have a hathi at the entrance to collect offerings. Maybe it was the novelty. I didn't mind offering paisa to a speckled elephant trunk. I did less well with beggars. So the Crimson Tide is protecting us from ...Tulane? --JR

I think about some of the online games my husband is addicted to- you know the ones where snipers are shooting at you as you throw granades and so on. Anyway, we had this intense conversation about who he was playing against- it might be a 4 year old kid or and 80 year old woman- who knows?? The same feeling struck me with wiki- who is this person sending information? Should they be trusted? It's an interesting place but i'm not sure I trust it yet...

All aboard the Wiki Train!!!
I was impressed with Wiki. It is just another avenue to add to the city structure of my online community. I especially like the name "Wiki." It's fun to say. And I can never just say Wiki one time. I have to add several wiki's to add to the fun of saying it just once. I would welcome more training in Wiki. I am the type that learns and becomes more comfortable the more I play with a certain program. But honestly, who couldn't benefit from more training in anything!!!--Amandarlowe 13:09, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)