Talk:Learning in a digital age/LiDA104/Fact checking/Previous work

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Reliability of Wikipedia is covered in LiDA101111:59, 4 March 2019
Reliability of the video material111:57, 4 March 2019

Reliability of Wikipedia is covered in LiDA101

Does it matter that there is overlap with the material here https://course.oeru.org/lida101/learning-pathways/find-and-select-open-resources/reliability-of-wikipedia/?

Simonne w (talk)11:48, 1 March 2019

In this case, I'm not worried about overlap. For two reasons:

  1. Repetition is a modality of learning ;-)
  2. Some learners may not take LiDA101 choosing to study LiDA104 as an independent micro-course.
 

Reliability of the video material

Are we satisfied that Mike Caulfield's message is robust here? Do we want to rely on this video? (a) He says that you can't find out AcPEDS true purpose/agenda from their website, so need to go to Wikipedia. However, if you look at the AcPEDS 'About' page, they are pretty open about their stance. (b) It is a long step from being 'socially conservative' to being a 'hate organisation'. Mike declares as a fact in his video that they are a hate organisation - presumably on the basis of some claims reported (but not stated as fact) in the last para of the Wikipedia article. Has he fact-checked those? Is he just exhibiting a socially liberal bias? (c) He seems to be claiming that longevity, mass participation and large amounts of money are reliable indicators of the truthfulness of information put out by an organisation. This would make the websites of many small activist groups unreliable.

Simonne w (talk)11:40, 1 March 2019

This is a good "authentic" example for learners to consider, and the kinds of questions and critical reflections we would want participants to consider. I suggest that you add a few bullet points using open questions for learner reflection.