More from Wikipedia policy/guidelines:

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.



[edit] Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

"helpful guidelines indeed"

I agree, and I think Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines are much more solid than Conservapedia's affirmation that their content is more reliable simply because it's moderated.

In terms of your point that "rather than aiming for objectivity, 'accuracy, veracity, validity, and balance' might be better grails for the quest," I couldn't agree more. As an English teacher, I feel much as you do as a History teacher about the illusion of objectivity. My use of that word, though, was in refutation of Conservapedia's own claims of its "unbiased" stance -- or similar claims that could be made by less conscientious souls than yourself, working with less international / heterogeneous student bodies.

Anyway, I love the idea of a well-run, democratic wiki as a teaching tool, and I'm hoping I get the chance to implement something along these lines in future courses I teach. There's also a lot to be mined from the comments of others to this post, so I'll have to take some time to synthesize all of it.

Thanks!

unfortunately all of us are biased and carry our own values which reflect our thinking adn teaching for that matter(whether we realizie it or not) therefore information is always going to be skewed or ommited. Would you for example talk about creationism to your classes? probably not because in your point of view its not necessary or realible, so you have already skewed information that some would deemed as worthy of a discussion. But nobody can make you(or any teacher)include all sources and all information regarding a certain topic that is up to your discretion.
Regarding the word conservative you have given an specific connotation which to you means something. To others liberal means hippie,druggie can hold a job. But just because someone gives them a certain connotation does not make it so. So for me the name site is named Conservapedia does not imply a biased. The biased is on peoples mind that alraedy have a preconception and judgement in their minds when they hear the word conservative or liberal.

Jason, I love the idea for all the reasons you cite. It's also a way to invite parents into any controversy by giving them a voice, rather than invite their complaints by excluding them.

I'm boning up on Wikipedia's rules and guidelines in hopes they'll help me set this up so that only reasoned, sourced argument is used. Opinionated soap-boxes I don't want. There may be a place for those on a companion blog or forum....

I'll definitely keep in touch. I've got 2 Western Civ (grade 9) and 3 Chinese history (grades 10-12) next year. You?

Good feedback, Marc. It's after midnight here, so real quick:

1. "Simply allowing [students] to post an opinion" is not the objective. Directing them to post supplemental information that either complicates what the textbook includes, or add information that it excludes, is. Any opinion about the textbook will have to be justified with information beyond the text.

Examples: Woodrow Wilson is often painted as a progressive in textbooks, and they almost always leave out his extreme (and historically documented) racism. A student "supplementing" the textbook with examples of his racism would be justified in inferring from this omission that the textbook seems to whitewash Wilson in a typical case of heroizing and mythologizing American presidents. There are a million more examples from any national history's narratives: how they're framed, what they include and exclude.

2. The "fine line" you mention is important to note. Precisely by encouraging them to be critical, though, they'll have the opportunity to learn what is and is not a valid critique. Their false steps will be as important as their solid ones, since it's through mistakes that they learn. Failure's a great teacher.

3. "Finding a good textbook" is a good idea, but teachers have to use the ones assigned by the school (at least in my case). Directing students to search for information beyond the textbook - whether in other textbooks or, better still, in works by historians online or in the library - will sort of expose them to a wider range of narratives, some better, some worse. But to me, the important thing is that they be challenged to never take any authoritative text as wholly "good". Our pundits in the New York Times are often horribly bad, yet enjoy great reputations. And let's not forget that any given textbook is also going to have its fair share of decent work in some sections.

I spent some time today burrowing into Wikipedia's policies and guidelines starting with theirPolicy, Procedures, and Product page. Lots of very useful guidance for keeping it rigorous.

Keep it coming. I've got a few months to refine this, so the input is greatly appreciated.

Alright, I'm digging the idea more than ever.

1. You're right that there is a big difference between "an opinion" and a conclusion based on data/events. (More on the implication of this at the end)

2. Great point, but it makes something obvious: this plan of your requires good feedback mechanisms to be successful. Wikipedia has a pretty natural feedback mechanism in place: there is prestige in having your writing show up as the definitive answer for something.

I think a teacher can play the role of wiki editor fairly easily, pointing out "false steps" as they arise. However, a wiki for a class is missing that element of prestige. Maybe there should be something included for students to say they "like" an entry, or perhaps could be rewarded for adding insightful commentary.

3. Spot on...no need to draw this point out.

Ok, so, an anecdote to sum this up:

One of the best professors I've ever had taught Psychology of Creativity--the material was engaging, exciting, enlightening, you name it. One of the few assignments the professor had us do was write a weekly journal entry in a class forum, hoping to spark discussion among students. And even though the material was as engaging as any that I've ever encountered (and most of my classmates would say the same), there was precious little discussion on the forums. Students would just post what amounted to the quickest thing that they could think of that met the requirements, often resorting to "posting an opinion."

The activity was *so close* to being right, though: it got us thinking beyond what was said in class in a critical manner. For instance, I got really excited one week and dug through baseball stats looking for Lotka curves because of a post someone else had written. I think your scheme might have the missing pieces because it stresses data and critical interpretation.

Closer to 1 a.m. after my last comment, so again, sorry to be brief, Zeus.

I love the thrust of your comment. A twitter pal in Australia turned me on to Teaching History dot org today. It has several approaches to teaching a critical understanding of historical schools of thought. It also has a great approach to teaching the contructedness of all history in thisQuestioning Textbook Authority unit. I may adapt it.

Above all, your input reminds me to stake out the first week or two give a tour of the "meta" of history. You've made me pull my copy of E.H. Carr's What is History? off the shelf for a re-read.

As for using literature and other art to illuminate history, that's a given in my book (I majored in "Interdisciplinary Arts and Letters" out of a refusal to accept that a piece of the pie makes sense removed from the whole pie, so I'm thoroughly grounded in the history of philosophy, religion, politics, literature, and art). That being said, studying history through these lenses will probably take place outside of the wiki textbook supplement, which I don't see as the entire program at all. It will just be one slice of the pie.

Thanks for the great input and keep it coming.

Nice assist, Jodi. I just posted about it here.