Transfer this to schools. There are still many places where students are relying on dial-up, if that. Having at least some type of access here is better than no access at all.

So I guess again, like others, I am seeing the middle ground.

I currently use closed blogs with my 6th and 7th graders who are just learning about how and why to blog. I see it as a regular part of scaffolding, much the way I used to teach writing before blogs were ever a part of it. Before they understand the nature of a blog and the inter-connectedness of it, they must understand how it works — essentially, they need a safe place to play. So, our blogs start as a sandbox of sorts — they figure out how it works before we go “live.”

So, during the “walled time,” students learn much about the nature of writing for an audience; they also learn about cyber-bullying (because it inevitably happens), RSS feeds, internet safety, and much more. Our students are VERY new to these Web2.0 tools, and so keeping them in the walled garden at the start allows them to learn the responsibility that comes with the empowerment before taking it to the world beyond our school.

It is my hope that the walls will come down completely in the future, as our students become more accustomed to using Web 2.0 tools, and they begin learning about it at an earlier age. But for now, the walls give us a safe place to play before we break it out “big” in the real blogosphere. The fundamentals of writing pedagogy still exist; these have not changed — young writers need to experiment first before publishing.

Some teachers in our school do the same thing with wikis — learn here first, then open it up.

The example that Dean gave is not the kind of authentic learning experience that a walled garden can foster. However, I do think there are times when the walled garden approach can be useful, and hopefully with time, we won’t need it at all. But every student, teacher, and school is at a different place when it comes to learning these tools and the “rules” for one should not necessarily be the rules for all — we need to meet them where they’re at and go from there.

Transformative change is needed. Transformative change is less likely to happen with offline WikiPedia versions or walled-garden blogs.

What do others think about this?

I guess I wonder if taking it offline and using it may, in fact, be a step backwards. Rather than working towards a more appropriate use and understanding of a potentially powerful resource, we’ve removed all that is unique about wikipedia and placed it in our more comfortable, traditional paradigm and thus avoided the conversations that need to take place.

I can only relate a story about a teacher who used a blog but only had it accessible to parents and students. The students and teachers did not find the blog all that helpful because it ended up being too much like their classroom. She decided not to blog the next year.

I’m just wondering if this might lead to more offline, walled garden thinking and thus strengthen beliefs that the internet is basically bad and that schools are better off when they control the learning. I hope I’m wrong.

I have created opportunities to help educate my students regarding Wikipedia. Often, as part of a lesson, I will pull in a short part of WikiPedia relating to our content. Early in the year, there are audible gasps as students realize I have a WikiPedia page open. We discuss the editing format of WikiPedia and how/why it can be a starting point for research but is NOT the end all “Truth” site. As students have needed to find references for science during this school year, I find many look at WikiPedia first and then rapidly visit more “scientific” sites.

Now, my experience is slightly skewed as I work with Middle School students. I’m positive that differences will exist when teachers of Elementary, High School, and University professors consider Wikipedia in respect to their classes.

I am in agreement with Wesley Freyer’s last comments above as he proposes “Can we unblock WikiPedia” for student use.” If this IT request is possible/achieved, then the idea of a DVD of WikiPedia is a moot question. Perhaps more importantly, it also ensures the learners are able to access the most up-to-date information from recent WikiPedia edits.

So, while I understand the need for a Wikipedia for student use, I don’t understand the need to take it offline. Can’t there simply be a version of Wikipedia for schools online — like the one you linked to at http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ? Keeping it online continues to keep it organic, never “published” and always up-to-date. Of course, I assume the Wikipedia community is still the one updating it and not our classroom of 5th graders, but isn’t this a good place to start? I worry about the offline nature of Wikipedia for schools.

I do, however, love the idea of it being done in conjunction with SOS Children’s Villages. Kudos to Wikipedia for that.

This conversation reminds me of the debate over open-web publishing versus walled-garden publishing for students. One fear regarding walled-garden publishing is that students won’t EVER be permitted to publish on the open-web at school and thereby learn the power and politics involved in open-web publishing. On the other hand, if some districts are not encouraged to AT LEAST permit walled-garden use of web 2.0 tools and technologies, it appears they NEVER will.

I’m not saying learners shouldn’t use WikiPedia. It’s “the real thing.” I do think, however, this offline version can be a door opener in cases where administrators and/or IT departments have given an unequivocal “no” to the question “Can we unblock WikiPedia for student use?”

All the human knowledge out there (well, a lot of it anyway) is worth $8. Go figure.

If it’s bandwidth or access issues, that’s one thing but as a filtering solution, it doesn’t excite me at all.
It reminds me of this recent edutopia article:
http://www.edutopia.org/web-2.0-tools-filtering-firewalls

Wikipedia is great because it’s dynamic, organic and being built every second and yes, requires high levels of skeptism. Taking it offline turns it into another information sources just like traditional encyclopedias.