Textbooks are not cheap. I can not think of a hard cover text book that has cost me less than $50. When I was in high school, it cost approx $75 to replace any given text. I am in my seventh semester at WCU, and on average, take 3 classes per semester. That means I am spending, on average between $150 and $225 per semester on books. Typically 1 out of every three books is kept or cannot be resold. The same rate of 1/3 can be applied for resale value of a book. If a book cost me $75 I will be lucky to get back $25 for it. Check out a Washington Post article, one of a few stories from across the country that has recently looked into the high costs of education and educational materials.
In his 1996 book Lies My Teacher Told Me, James Loewen has a chapter that asks the question “Why Is History Taught Like This?” This chapter goes over the process of choosing an author, writing, reviewing, editing, publishing and selling textbooks. Books sometimes must have sections rewritten depending on where in the country is sold. For example, books chosen in southern US states very often have a lighter depiction of the Civil War then similar books in northern states. Sometimes, the original author may no longer have anything to do with a book, since they had written it over 50 years ago, only one or two central ideas from them may remain between the covers.
One way to fight the delay between research and publication is to publish books online. I argue that publishers would no longer charge for the printing costs, but instead would charge to access the material due to increased technology fees and security fees to prevent copyright infringement.
For a history class I am enrolled in, I had to write about an interview with an influential (to me) historian. I found a recent interview (Fall 2006), What I Think I May Have Learned-Reflections on 50 Years of Teaching: An Interview With Michael Wertheimer. Wertheimer is, or was at the time of publication, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He went to school at Swarthmore College, Johns Hopkins, and Harvard. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Teaching Award of the American Psychological Foundation and won a Lifetime Achievement Award for Sustained, Outstanding, and Unusual Contributions to the History of Psychology from the APA’s Division 26. This article can be found on EBSCOhost and in Teaching of Psychology; Autumn 2006, Vol. 33 Issue 4, p280-287, 8p, 1bw.
One thing Wertheimer discusses is that students are sometimes “a bit uncritical in their assessment of sources” (282). An online encyclopedia could be such a source. I am enrolled in a different class that has a rule of no internet sources on the final paper. Fair enough, at least I know now, instead of the night before it is due. All sources need to be vetted, it does not matter if they are print, or electronic, or oral. See later in this post for more.
“Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a leading provider of learning and knowledge products. We're proud to be one of the world's most trusted sources of information on every topic imaginable - from the origins of the universe to current events and everything in between.”
The Britannica Encyclopedia has limited information available online, but if you purchase their books you get the benefits of so much more! You can read them while in tunnels, or on a plane flying across the Atlantic Ocean. However, when a new edition is published, you don’t get the updated version free – you have to buy it all over again. To get new online material, simply hit the refresh button and new things can load.
When thinking about online encyclopedia, one may think of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia defines itself as a “ free, multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. “
Quick note from a lazy writer: links are in abundance on the Wikipedia website and are much easier to get from one topic to another. A paper encyclopedia can be like a child’s “choose your own adventure” book that has a different ending every time it is read. It is easy to get distracted in either format.
Deciding if a source is worthy is difficult. If you see a teacher using a site, usually you can use it as a trustworthy source. The first few results in a Google search might be trustworthy. The site linked on page 73 may not be so trustworthy.
I look at Wikipedia as a source of information published by my peers. My peers in this case are users of Web 2.0, the MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, BLOGS (!) and Wikipedia generation. Newspaper circulation is no longer growing, but the number of readers that use their websites is growing. It is fair to assume that the Philadelphia Inquirer has fewer readers than its website does, www.philly.com.
Do you trust your peers? Some you may not, but in general, do you trust them? Not with your personal secrets, but to tell you what color your shirt is, or who won the election.
Some news articles use Wikipedia to explain things that may be confusing. Check out this article from Wired.com LOST , by design, is an incredibly layered and complex show that I plan on blogging about in the future. Just like The Matrix trilogy, each part of LOST is layered with references to mythology, pop culture, history, science, and countless other topics. Some viewers may understand the literary references but be lost when it comes to the references behind someone’s name, like a Terry O’Quinn’s character John Locke (think: philosophy). In this case, Wikipedia is used a reference to explain some of the finer points that just don’t belong in the article. Why should an article give a synopsis of a two hour movie that is just referred to for less than one minute of a 42 minute TV show?
I am NOT suggesting or saying or recommending that one should use Wikipedia as a source for a scholarly paper. Rather, Wikipedia should be used to gain a general knowledge and general consensus of a topic. One of my fraternity brothers has to create a time line of Greek Mythology. If he looks at a quality Wikipedia article that cites its sources, he should be able to find a better site or article from a source that your professor would actually find credible. But if you use Wikipedia as a portal do you need to cite it? Or can you just say you “Googled” a topic and found any article?
I am trying to advocate for an open-minded attitude in the beginning steps of research. Research drives grants and scholarship and the future by creating a better understand of the past and the environment around us.
So what do you think? Can Wikipedia be trusted to lead us in the right direction for research? Or is the website the start of a downward spiral of scholarship that will lead ultimately to no new ideas being created?
