Group items tagged

It won't be accurate—One of the most common and oft-repeated misconceptions of any collaborative authoring process in general, and wikis in particular, is that if a large group of people are contributing, then the influence of subject matter experts will be diluted and the resulting content will be full of inaccuracies. As noted previously, even an open, collaborative system will only attract a statistically small number of contributors. Those contributors tend to be the subject matter experts and people who have a vested interest in the subject matter. And when inaccuracies do occur, they are corrected a lot quicker than in traditional media. The net result of collaborative authoring is not only the perceived knowledge of designated experts, but also the informed contribution of others who are passionate about a subject and can bring a fresh perspective.

But, face-to-face meetings are not always practical, especially for a distributed team. In such instances, a collaborative workspace of any kind can be a real benefit

If knowledge of subject matter were the most important factor in delivering a quality education, then professors with doctorates and a long list of publications in their field would make ideal candidates for K-12, as I wrote in a letter to the editor published in the Los Angeles Times on Dec. 3 ("You get what you pay for"). After all, they certainly possess expertise in their subject. But what most of them lack is pedagogical competence. That's why they wouldn't last very long in a public school classroom.