Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » Wikipedia banned from Dearborn Schools « Previous Next »
Archive through June 26, 2008Sean_of_detroit30 06-26-08  7:20 am
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4863
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 9:01 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SofD, the Bible scripture I quoted was not simply about sex; it was about incest and statutory rape - a somewhat inverted [and perverted] form of date rape.

If Wikipedia had been a set of books, like an old fashioned set of printed encyclopedias, and a school system had banned the entire set for, let's say revealing the private parts of Michaelangelo's David on one page, can you imagine the outcry?

By entirely blocking Wikipedia, Dearborn school system has committed a virtual book burning that means the have-not's, those who cannot afford computers/internet access at home, will be denied an important knowledge and, yes, research tool.

I am working on further verification of this story and am inquiring with other districts to see if this is an isolated event, but through my somewhat extensive network of connections, I can assure you that the ban is in effect.
Top of pageBottom of page

Craig
Member
Username: Craig

Post Number: 866
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 9:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

It is a hard to swallow fact, for some, that 99 times out of 100, probably more, the collective knowledge of the crowd is is smarter than any one egghead. When I hear pooh-poohing of Wikipedia, do I not also hear overtones of 'I had to struggle though university writing my dissertation about some obscure topic and it shouldn't be this easy'? [All who I suspect now secretly run to Wikipedia all the time.]



Sounds like you're confusing trivia with collection, integration, and interpretation of data. The crowd is more knowledgable? Hardly - Wiki's edit process allows any and all to post, counter-post, and counter-post again. The professional/academic process involves open debate and examination of evidence. I'm certain that an objective comparison of the two processes would find the output of the academic channel to be superior to the speed/serial editing of a single communal article of Wiki.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4864
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 9:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The "professional/academic" process is only open to those they admit to their circles and allow access into their private stash of reserved libraries, which means 'crowd not welcome'. Open means, de facto, open to club members. The errors produced by this locked process litter the scrap heap of false knowledge.

The Wikipedia process is open to all including the academics, many of whom have joined in. In the end this will mean the crowd + the academics. If the Wikipedia process is abused, the topics can be placed under guardianship and "courts" exist to handle disputes.

The Wiki process is less than a decade old and will only improve with age and refinement.

Truth in knowledge, as history shows, is often temporary whether Newtons Laws or theories of racial and sexual inferiority. The wiki process hastens the demise of false truths as well is filling in volumes of disregarded so-called minor facts, locked out by print publishing monopolies, such as Einar's Parducci entries.

But then what use is work of Parducci to a Dearborn school kid any way?

"Two heads are better than one."
Top of pageBottom of page

Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2

Post Number: 1452
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 9:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You can't have alternative forms of information. The kiddies might get a different slanted opinion from Dearborn's teachers. egads
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitteacher
Member
Username: Detroitteacher

Post Number: 1299
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 10:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I encourage my students to look at all sources for information. I do not allow them to cite Wikipedia as a source in their research papers. I take them through the misleading wiki entries and show them that some information is not always correct. I also teach them about individual websites and about the validity of sources. I also show them the journals and databases that are available to them online.

With some instruction, kids are able to determine the validity of sources (they have to find their information in more than one source to check it). It's all about teaching them to be responsible in their internet searches.

(Message edited by detroitteacher on June 26, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 2285
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 10:14 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like Wikipedia for memory jogging. Over time, the things I've learned have gotten filed everywhere in my head, where I seem to be running out of data space. So, I find a quick trip to Wikipedia on a subject I learned back in the Dark Ages does a lot to refresh my memory and send me to some good sources if I need more details.

Some things I have recently looked into: The history of the Aztec founding of Tenochtitlan, US trade history with China, the Hong Kong Sino-British Accord, the Anishinaabe story of Shingebis, the winter duck, which I amended.

Trust me, after a few decades, you won't remember this stuff off the top of your head, either, so it really is great to have a quick site to access the info.
Top of pageBottom of page

Craig
Member
Username: Craig

Post Number: 868
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The "professional/academic" process is only open to those they admit to their circles and allow access into their private stash of reserved libraries, which means 'crowd not welcome'.



Buuuut... urban/'open-enrollment' schools like WSU go a long way toward leveling the proverbial playing field. Sons and daughters of factory workers are earning PhDs in every field, and the research facilities are not shabby. Not saying that a PhD from Wayne walks into tenure-track slots at top-notch schools, but you can see young people only a generation removed from a blue collar trading thoughts with Ivy leaguers at academic conferences.

Further, research around collective thought & action paints a dismal picture for the quality of outcomes. Plenty of articles document a causal relationship between growth in numbers/contributors and anarchy & sub-optimal decisions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Esteban
Member
Username: Esteban

Post Number: 89
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 10:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit teacher,

You said:
"...I take them (students) through the misleading wiki entries and show them that some information is not always correct..."

So - why don't you correct it? (And cite your source)
Top of pageBottom of page

Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit

Post Number: 926
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

More than religion, that post was a point about views on free expression, and how that view has changed.

Stated a little more clearly; things have changed in the view of what is acceptable for a reason I really don't know. For example, I remember a few years ago, several Detroit (I think) politicians and groups tried to cover up several murals and statues around the city that showed nudity.

It had been there for decades in some cases, but suddenly it was no longer appropriate.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4865
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 10:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitteacher, I appreciate your POV, but I think disallowing Wikipedia as a source is not correct. I can understand disallowing it as the only source [unless it is the only source as it is for a big number of items]. Also using it as teaching tool to explain the potential for error of sources is brilliant. BTW, can you tell of of the DPS also bans Wikipedia?

Craig, you make your points well as always, and I am not far from your position but what you describe is the 'pecking order' of the protective realms of academia which, I think, are ultimately detrimental to knowledge, particularly broad knowledge. Having been through the graduate school process, I appreciate the depth of vetting of positions that it brings with it. However I also remember the egos, book sales, grants and prestige that sometimes interfere.

I do not see the same dismal future to crowd-sourced knowledge. On the contrary I see and explosion of knowledge and a ever-refining improvement of it, unlimited by highly controlled ink and paper publishers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitteacher
Member
Username: Detroitteacher

Post Number: 1300
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 11:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To my knowledge, DPS doesn't ban Wikipedia. We still are able to access it on the few computers we do have in the library. I tailor topics so that Wikipedia is not the only source. Kids must have a book, news/magazine article, and internet journal/database as sources. Other than that, if they find other information, they can use it but I require them to look at more than just the internet for sources. I want them to be able to rely on information other than the internet (too many kids are tech friendly and not paper friendly). Since kids need (at least in my class) to verify their information using more than one piece, then the issue of using Wikipedia is really a non-issue. Many do cite it as a source on their works consulted page, but it isn't their only source, and the info is verified so it usually doesn't end up on their works cited page. Rarely do I have a student who cites Wikipedia in their actual paper.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitteacher
Member
Username: Detroitteacher

Post Number: 1301
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 11:42 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Esteban: I don't have time to correct Wikipedia information. If someone can come in after me and edit what info I put in, then why waste my time?
Top of pageBottom of page

Ggores
Member
Username: Ggores

Post Number: 146
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 11:54 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I’d like to comment on this matter and it needs to begin with a little story. I am interested in the last words allowed to be spoken by future beheadie’s, prior to their beheadment, when public execution by beheading was standard fare for the most heinous (and ridiculous) crimes. Way back, before the internet went commercialized, I could research a wide variety of topics, and half of the fun was getting there – as with most things. Well, with those days long, long gone, whenever I get a curious thought and wonder what the correct answer is to something, Wikipedia, I admit, is Ok. Only Ok. Now to my relevant comment. Sometimes, when a curious thought question pops into my head, such as, for example, the origins of pop music, I will ask my kid (who spends a LOT of time on the WWW) “hey, kid, would you please look up the origins of pop music and say to me what you find out?” I will hear the fingers quickly typing away and then silence. I allow about 120 seconds for reading and digestion. “Well? What’d ya find out?” Oh, I get some blah, blah, blah answer. So I get up, walk over, give the kid a little pop in the head, and say something like “look, I want a correct answer, not some goobily-gop Wikifreakia bull crap”. Sounds harsh perhaps to some, but in my opinion, the kid needs to LEARN HOW TO DIG. Dig? I don’t mind Wiki, but my kids think I absolutely detest it. Pretty slick, eh? Oh, by the way, those “last words” speeches I referred to at the first? Man, some of the most amazing stuff you’d ever want to read. Think I’ll go Wiki it and see what comes up. Heh, “relevant comment”. I crack myself up sometimes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dds
Member
Username: Dds

Post Number: 688
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 12:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I prefer the Andrew Keen view on this whole debate. New fangled mob-rule with a healthy dose of egoism.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 1888
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 12:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You should not be allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source, EVER, just as you have not been allowed to cite Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source, EVER. No respectable scholarly paper can use encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc., as citations. It's bush league.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cdwaters
Member
Username: Cdwaters

Post Number: 155
Registered: 02-2008
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 12:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Many teachers don't allow citation of any electronic sources. As stated above, Wikipedia and other websites are a great place to begin your research, but if you stop there you can run into a lot of trouble. Many electronic resources aren't subject to the same type of peer review that published works are.

I remember looking up Greenfield Village in Wikipedia and finding someone had changed the entry so that the only thing it talked about was the history of the Logan County Courthouse and how the building had (in the authors opinion) been illegally obtained and the fight to get it back. The article was interesting considering I worked there at the time and had heard of many controversies surrounding Ford and the museum, but not this particular one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba

Post Number: 6790
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tell us where you'll get popular culture about Dearbornistan. I learned that term from Wiki and shared it with you. I like my branch library and still use Wiki. Wiki is one tool in my toolbox, not the whole enchalada.

jjaba on the Westside.
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 1:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is a fact that the Dearborn Public Schools block wikipaedia.

Estaban is correct.
I do feel he is unfair in calling Dearborn an educational backwater. As a matter of fact, Dearborn schools deliver more technology to its students and teachers than the vast majority of other school districts.

this is important, because not every family has the resources to send their kid to a high rent zip code like Ann Arbor or to, say, an Armenian school
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jjaba, whose learning I often admire, makes a good point when he says "Wiki is one tool in my toolbox, not the whole enchalada."

In DPS, Wikipaedia is blocked for Teachers and students. How can Dearborn teachers to use Wiki paedia correctly (by correctly, I mean in a way acceptable to scholarly standards) If they do not have access to it?

Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipaedia, admints that it is not, and by its nature cannot be authoritative. That does not mean its not valuable. All scholars need to learn how to verify and cite their sources. In Dearborn, this has become harder to teach.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba

Post Number: 6794
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 1:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Studious1, welcome to The Forum. Your points are well taken.

jjaba, Westside Bar Mitzvah Bukkor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Edsel
Member
Username: Edsel

Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 3:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

1. Veracity? (Esteban, Professorscott):
1a. I went to the district administration building (18700 Audette, Dearborn, MI 48124), sat at district internet computers in the lobby, tried Wikipedia, it was filter blocked.
1b. Dearborn Schools Communications Office (313) 827-1406 (they seem to be in and out, not sure if they're on partial summer schedule). But a real person eventually talks to you.

2. Why? See this article re images:

Is Wikipedia wicked porn:
WorldNetDaily
Posted: May 06, 2008
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f a=PAGE.view&pageId=63590

Article is about images, not words. If images are the issue, is text only wikped ok? Lowell's Bible scripture above is just that, a scripture, a text .. not images. So the scripture is ok, as long as it's not also the illustrated version, maybe. hmmm.

At a different level, two issues in this discussion are something like, on the one hand, community truth vs. authority truth, : the sloppy collective creation of meaning in Wikipedia vs. the tidy legal of an Encyclopedia Britannica: which one is true(truer).

And on the other hand, government community morality vs. private morality: what should be prohibited (by whom, to whom), either by law or by local custom, or by personal exercise; for the web, what are the conditions of unacceptable use?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 7430
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 4:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dearborn Public Schools must have banned Wikipedia for several reasons:

1. Too much cited accuracies.

2. Citations from various sources could be NON-SEQUITUR!

3. Kids can learn information from corrupted sources like the ANARCHIST COOKBOOK or HOW TO MAKE A BOMB!

4. Internet dictionaries like Wikipedia could make ordinary traditional book and college dictionaries worthless.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba

Post Number: 6795
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 6:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Edsel, great handle for a Dearborn topic.
Welcome to The Forum.

jjaba, Westsider.
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In case anyone is wondering what NON-SEQUITUR means, here is the entry form Wikipedia:

Non sequitur (IPA: (didn't translate special symbols) is Latin for "it does not follow," it may refer to:

* Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy
* Non sequitur (humor), a comment that has no relation to the preceding comment or to an ongoing discussion or topic.
* Non Sequitur (comic strip), a comic strip by Wiley Miller
* "Non Sequitur" (Star Trek: Voyager), an episode of Star Trek: Voyager


Here is the entry from http://www.merriam-webster.com

Pronunciation: (didn't translate special symbols)
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540

1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent

2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

Discussion:
In this case I find Wikipedia broader than the "authority" (Merriam-Webster). It tells me about the comic strip and the Star Trek Episode. But its definitions are sloppy: "a logical fallacy" is not very precise. I think it’s a particular type of fallacy. Webster's definition says it better.

Wikipedia's second definition is good and concise but is does not only apply to humourous speech.

The OED probably has examples of non sequitars in various contexts and includes more etymological information. I can add this stuff and improve Wikipedia, making its entry better then Webster's. The experience of the Wiki community is that few people will bother to deface this simple entry.

This why community based knowledge tools (this forum, for instance) are powerfull.
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 4
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 6:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dearborn Schools may have had no Choice

My lawyer friend just got back to me. CIPA, (Child internet Protection Act) requires entities that rcieve Federal funding(DPS recieves Title I and Erate money from feds) to apply internet filtering. It is her legal opinion that if DPS had failed to act on a complaint from a parent the district would have lost in court and might face a significant funding reductions.

She is a long time cival liberties activist and feels that its a bad law, but that it is fairly clear in a case like this.
Top of pageBottom of page

Redwingz
Member
Username: Redwingz

Post Number: 18
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 1:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You can't win an argument with a frickin' religious fanatic, a moron, or a 2 year old. So, WTF, people, do yourself in. If that's what you want to do, go do it.

Dare I say again, "Voodoo Science". Go buy a tube of "Head-On" when you have a headache. As the ad says, "Apply directly to the forehead" and repeat 3 times. It doesn't claim to work, only testimonials from loyal customers. Do you know they even have a migraine version of this homeopathic BS? Go figure! The same as Wiki!

As PT Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute", or something like that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit

Post Number: 937
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 2:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Redwingz, I don't really know what "Head On" is actually made of, or if it works. However, just because they don't say what it does means nothing. Many pharmaceuticals do this (The Purple Pill Commercials come to mind) to avoid lengthy disclaimers. It's my understanding that if they tell you what it does, they also have to tell you, by law, of all the possible undesirable side affects.

I don't see how that would have anything to do with Wikipedia. I also do not see how either necessarily makes someone a "sucker", as you so eloquently put it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4866
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 9:05 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It sounds to me like the Dearborn story awaits the complaint of another parent regarding the suppression of knowledge and denouncing it for the virtual book-burning that it is. If they were really into it, they would go through the library resources to make sure there are no prints of artworks with any hint of nudity, cuss words, or even fictional descriptions of sex, and whatever else 'threatens the children'.

This is truly a case of the tail wagging the dog. Bowing to one parent punishes all students in the system.

It strikes me that if a parent is so worried about a few entries among the millions in Wikipedia, the school system would allow that child to be dismissed from using internet search rather than deny its access to tens of thousands of other children.

I am starting to wonder of the objecting parent isn't really some Wikipedia-threatened academic using a few obscure entries to seek revenge.

BTW, has it been made public exactly which entries are objectionable?
Top of pageBottom of page

Craig
Member
Username: Craig

Post Number: 871
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 9:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lowell - I only have a little of your optimism re: the wisdom of crowds, but re: academic culture...

quote:

However I also remember the egos, book sales, grants and prestige that sometimes interfere.



...we agree.
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 5
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When I talked to my lawyer friend about this, she was pessimistic about whether this ruling could be challenged.

The reason is that the courts have consistently sided with schools when they have sought to curb student rights. (lookup Bong Hits for Jesus) I think the same doctrine would apply to a parent initiated suite.

I I understand our (lengthy) discussion correctly, the most effective way to challenge this sort of thing might be to have a suite brought by a student who is over the age of 18. the reason is that CIPA treats minor's and legal adults very differently.

I am almost certain (I have had a lot of contact with public schools) that they would contest such a suit. The reason is that they would risk there e-rate funding. eRate funding is one of the main federal programs which enables schools to obtain tech funding at subsidized rates.

eRate is a very complex program and I am willing to be corrected by anyone who knows more about it than I do. Another question is whether a district would stand to lose Title 1 funding.

My Experience: school administrators (probably all administrators) will "stand tall" in defence of…. Their careers
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 6
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 12:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lowell,

I think there are 2 real reasons why Dearborn pulled the plug on Wikipedia (Yes my posts are out of order on this)
1. Schools administrators are frightened of appearing to champion pornography (and yes phony "decency" trumps intellectual freedom in our pathetic society)

2. They are afraid of losing Federal funding. I'm sorry to say that this may be a real concern.
That is CIPAS's teeth.

Leads to a question: would you personally reinstate Wikipedia at a cost of significantly cutting the student to computer ratio in a school district?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 13154
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 1:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yet another form of slavery to an overgrown federal government...using limits on payouts of our very own tax money.

They have their fingers in way too many pies, and it is all starting to taste bad. We don't know where those fingers have been.

Thanks for the feedback, Studious and others in the know. I'm with Lowell on this one, yet fully understand the dilemma.



Technology is our current god-like savior...
Top of pageBottom of page

Edsel
Member
Username: Edsel

Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RE: Lowell >> BTW, has it been made public exactly which entries are objectionable? <<

See this article, apparently the basis for blocking the site.

"Is Wikipedia wicked porn"
WorldNetDaily
Posted: May 06, 2008
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f a=PAGE.view&pageId=63590

See citation, my previous post. This is Not "public" in the sense of a press release from Dearborn Schools, but it's floating around emails to teachers about why Wikipedia was blocked in the district.

Question. Could images referenced in the above article be posted here on DetroitYes? Why/not?
Example: Cover image from Virgin Killer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I mage:Virgin_Killer.jpg

(Not asking that they BE posted; a rhetorical question to put a different perpective on the moral and publishing issues involved here.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 1557
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Grosse Pointe did the same thing back in the fall and that created an uproar for a while; however, if Dearborn uses a filter to block websites, there are many ways of getting around it. We (as in the student body) discovered a few this year.

In Grosse Pointe's case, it was something to do with a school law against the referencing of certain people who were not supposed to be referenced at that point in time. It's been a while, so I'm not sure of the exact law. They decided that it was too much time to block individual articles that violated that rule, so they blocked the entire thing. Generally, it's not a great source to use for a paper, but it is a good way to quickly fact check and see if there are any discrepancies in your paper. If there are, it never hurts to see which one is wrong.

The problem with this is that generally the schools end up banning other good areas of information. Because of this, we end up getting screwed while trying to research stuff for projects. Our district blocked all Google Images because of a few "suspect" ones. Needless to say, that has become a major problem to everyone who needs pictures for a project.

Yes, some things should be banned, but generally students know at what to look and at what not to look during school. We do have brains people, it just seems that most administrations have forgotten that (ours certainly has).
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4870
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 5:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I guess I am new-fashioned because all of that is pretty mild to me. When I searched some of those on the list, I found them all displayed in the context of descriptive knowledge, albeit carnal knowledge. Certainly it is tepid compared to what can be stumbled across on the web.

There are 'questionable' articles and illustrations everywhere in libraries but in the context of art and anatomy. They don't seem to disturb anyone. A fully nude lifelike female bronze adorns the entrance of even middle American Farmington Hill's library. Context is everything is my point.

As for posting on Detroityes, if the images were in context of sincere discussion, did not violate any laws or copyright infringements and were not just for titillation or giggles, then yes. Context is everything.

The Virgin Killer album cover would be objectionable if it was known that the model was underage because it would be illegal and rightly so. If it was clearly established that the model was of age, although difficult to believe so, then no problem.

Since there are so many parental control solutions out there, I guess I don't understand how blocking the few entries of Wikipedia that clearly cross their guidelines is that difficult. To entirely burn such an important resource of knowledge for a few pages is either lazy or absurd.

I'm not picking on any school system because I can understand the potential for grief that they don't want to deal with. But blocking any page, as it is objected to, would take care of the CYA part. 'Oh my god, we're shocked, we'll block it right away!'

Perhaps a wiki is in order on what pages in Wikipedia might be objectionable to schools and minors with links to allow systems to quickly scan and easily add to their network filters.
Top of pageBottom of page

English
Member
Username: English

Post Number: 745
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This scholar-in-training LOVES wikipedia. I also love scholar.google.com.

I don't cite Wiki. But any REAL scholar should also have a broad curiosity that extends beyond their tiny subfield.
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 7:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scs100 makes some good points.

I assume that the way you SCS found to get around it was through some form of proxy? (thats the most common way) Its hard for admins to control.

What scares me is the notion of a white list. with a white list I am 90% sure that access can be controlled in a way that no students can get
around.

The reason its so effective is that it only allows specific sites (really ip addressess and ports) to accessed. I hope it never comes to htis as its the last word in intellectual restraint.

As it is, school is incresingly an intellectual straight jacket. Schools in Michigan are are rated but how well students know the GLCE's (Grade level content expectations) as accessed trhough the MEAP.
Top of pageBottom of page

Edsel
Member
Username: Edsel

Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 8:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not sure if Scs Grosse Pointe block rationale is the same as Dearborn CIPA rationale. But If Studious1 attorney opinion is correct, any school nation-wide receiving fed e-funds , not just Dearborn, should block Wikipedia if there's a complaint to that school. It's national scope. If the buzz doesnt die down here, it's a catchy you-heard-it-first-here local news article for the Det News or Freep tech or education writers, then sensational enough to be picked up nationally. Blocking wikipedia is outrageous for tekkies, devine intervention for moralists. Sexy news stuff for AP, CNN and Fox for a day or two.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 1558
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 8:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Proxies were actually the ones that almost nobody used until the end, at least to my knowledge. There are some ways around that are just straight off of Google; there are a few programs that kill filters as well. The latter was the one that 3/4 of South was using until the administration found out and shut down the internet for a week for anyone who got caught. Point is, we will always find a way around and once that one is blocked, we will find another. Word travels fast, so within a short period of time, everyone will know (students that is). Even some of the teachers don't particularly care now, and that says something.

(Message edited by SCS100 on June 27, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Studious1
Member
Username: Studious1

Post Number: 13
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 10:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe one way of looking at it is that getting around security is our REAL computer curriculum.

Ah, to be 16 again and rejoin the forces of darkness. (or do I have it backwards)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2

Post Number: 1454
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 12:32 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder if Hillsdale blocks Wikipedia.
Top of pageBottom of page

Esteban
Member
Username: Esteban

Post Number: 90
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 9:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems that some of the folks who post to this thread are involved in the Dearborn School system, and feel understandable pride in an institution that has pretty high standards,
Contrary to my initial intended slap in the face, commenting that the Dearborn school system was backward, it went only as far as their medieval approach to censorship, specifically shutting down access to Wikipedia for the sake of protecting the young.
In any measure this is an absurd overreaction; not only throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but discarding the bathtub as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ggores
Member
Username: Ggores

Post Number: 154
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 10:42 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ahem. driving about town, I says to my kid, "so, kid, I hear that wikipedia been banned from dearborn schools." eyes of the kid went kind of buggy in astonishment, and then the kid say to me "really? why?" brilliant scholar I am, some time passes by before I give a correct answer - "to save money". Heh heh, we both nod our heads in beffudled agreement and went for a milkshake. three of 'em.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.