I remarked in class that I think Weinberger overstates his case about the transformation of knowledge. I'm not sure that it's an important criticism--like I said it may be semantic quibbling. In any case, this is what I mean: "When you draw the shape of knowledge on pages, you draw neat borders and don't have room for ambiguity" (82). Maybe in terms of labels and category filing, but since when does writing on pages and in books leave no room for ambiguity? It would be disingenuous of me to take Weinberger literally and/or out of context; I know he can't possibly think that ambiguity (or the appreciation of it) only arrived on the planet a couple decades ago. So I should probably just let it go...but not quite yet. His second of the four characteristics of knowledge that "we" all attributed to it but now have to reconceive is: "we've assumed that just as reality is not ambiguous, neither is knowledge" (101). Again, who ever thought that knowledge wasn't ambiguous? Ambiguity is certainly enhanced and can even be celebrated by and through the web and thus the decline of the authorities and gate-keepers and presenters of pre-approved knowledge that by their imprimatur is supposed to be passively accepted by the rest of us. I get it. I basically agree, but I was rarely taught to uncritically accept the released information of experts and my computer in college didn't even have icons. The internet was a figment of Al Gore's imagination *...
Nor did I spend all my class time "memorizing facts," as suggested by Weinberger's caricature of education that has yet to heed the web's new world order (144-145). Neither do I put my students desks in a neat grid, draw the shades (145) and drill them with the knowledge I have given them. I do, with much ambivalence, shy away from group work and cooperative learning to a greater degree than I probably ought to, although when my students become teachers I'm not at all certain that they would take the approach Weinberger assumes as obvious and inevitable, given the near universal dislike of group assignments among good students. By the way, I realize that group assignments and cooperative learning in general are not the same thing.
There is one teaching change I am going to make for sure. I am going to Xerox the section on Wikipedia for my students to read and discuss. Weinberger totally sold me on Wikipedia and its credo (as Weinberger articulates) that "credibility isn't about an author's credentials; it's about an author's contributions" (135). I hadn't realized how Wikipedia tracks its contributors, and though I had seen the various notices that make the process transparent and accountable, I hadn't understood how effective they apparently are. (My favorite is: "The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by 'weasel words'") (140). When I first started reading Wikipedia--I've never been an avid reader--a qualifier that I no longer need to make as though I am admitting to having viewed some porn, but not very much, just too... **--I remember reading an article on the author Rick Moody and thinking it sounded like an extended blurb with no acknowledgement of the controversy that he has stirred (especially with his imaginative memoir and constant trashing of his M.F.A. alma-matter, Columbia, neither of which bother me at all, but I thought should be noted). Note that the latter is now included in the Moody entry.
But now I will unashamedly remove the paper bag from my computer when I use Wikipedia, which will make it a lot easier to read, and be able to lead an informed discussion about it with my students. I especially will have them analyze the notices and citations and look at the discussions about disputes.
Finally, although I understand the battle, so to speak, between Wikipedia and what it represents (democratized and socially and openly constructed, more fluid knowledge), and Encyclopedia Britannica and what it represents (expert gate-keepers with their "grip" (134) on more static knowledge (134)--Weinberger would probably omit the "more's"--in a perhaps narrower sense the contrast can be misleading, if ever so slightly. When I assigned my most recent research paper I told my students that they could use Wikipedia, as long as they used at least one link from the Wikipedia page too. The most important thing, however, was that they not rely exclusively or even primarily on any encyclopedia. Our school librarian loves maligning Wikipedia and then Xeroxing a page out of whatever Britannica or Britannica-esque encyclopedia, and I want my students to use a variety of (or at least one or two) more in-depth sources. The problem is they're accustomed to reading information that's short, basic and "to the point." Again, that's where I think Weinberger overplays what is essentially a compelling position: pre-Web-style knowledge and education was and is not quite as simple as he sometimes casually implies.
* That was a cheap shot. I think Gore got a bad rap on what he was actually claiming.
** Hypothetically. (Ironically, this was founder Wales' previous business--in the web-searching thereof, and of the "soft" variety.) (138)
No comments:
Post a Comment