You - the Voki Avatar

Okay, it's almost the end of the week and almost the end of the summer semester. I think we need to make time for a little play 'n learn.


Get a Voki now!
(click on the play button in the bottom left)

At this point I honestly don't remember where I learned about this site, but it has been fun. Voki.com is a cool (free) little site where you can create your own speaking avatar. It is fairly intuitive and fast.

I sent the link to several coworkers and the Online Learning Series participants the other day. I didn't have time to play with it just then, but I had to share it! WELL . . . I have been getting some hilarious messages from people. Although I should probably be doing something a bit higher on the "productive" scale this afternoon, I am making time for a little play 'n learn.

Actually, I can see many uses for this - not just play. How cool would this be for an introduction to students taking your online class or going to your blog or wiki?

Take a play 'n learn break. You deserve it.

Just sharin'
Lee Anne

Wikipedia vs. Britannica?

Do you think Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is as accurate and up to date as Britannica? Or, stated another way, is collective knowledge = paid editors?

As I was reviewing material for my class on Wikis tomorrow, I ran across this in an article by Karl Kapp, Embracing Informal Learning: Understanding the tools of informal learning and their impact on organizations. On page 8 he shares this:

The British journal Nature—a reputable scientific journal first published
in 1869—published a peer-reviewed article examining a range of scientific entries in both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia through a rigorous peer review process and found few differences in accuracy. "The average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three [21]." The researchers found eight serious errors such as misinterpretations of important concepts in 42 reviews, there were four such errors found in each encyclopedia. Additionally, the reviewers found factual errors, omissions or
misleading statements in both. Wikipedia had 162 of these types of errors. The Encyclopedia Britannica had 123.

Essentially, the accuracy of the paper-based encyclopedia created by
paid editors and researchers was about the same as the collective encyclopedia created by visitors to the Wikipedia site—volunteer writers and editors [22] The implication? Collective knowledge is as accurate, reliable and helpful as edited and carefully reviewed knowledge. The openness of Wikipedia and wikis in general
helps to ensure accuracy. When a person browsing the site sees something they believe is wrong, they update it. The openness of the information ensures its accuracy. The concept of freedom of the press taken to the nth degree and it works.

It got me thinking. Am I telling my students to only trust people who are well paid to share information?

Just Sayin'
Lee Anne