UK University Wiki-fies Learning

A recent BBC interview with University of East Anglia comparative politics and international relations professor Dr. Nicola Pratt reveals a new course strategy using Wikipedia as its base. Dr. Pratt has structured a graduate-level course in Middle Eastern studies around the collaborative online encyclopedia, requiring her students to edit eight articles on the site in their subject area, as well as submit an article of their own. Pratt explains her incorporation of Wikipedia :

"They're assessed on their ability to improve the quality and balance of the article and they demonstrate they have done that through additional reading around the topic for that week.
"I can see why people are sceptical of Wikipedia because it hasn't gone through a peer review process.
"But with Wikipedia you have a peer review process that's going on every day - that may not involve academics but other people who have differing areas of knowledge."

While many are skeptical of the validity of Wikipedia's content, especially in light of last weeks' scandal regarding the credentials of one of the top editors, I have to admit that after reading the article, I think Dr. Pratt may have stumbled upon one of the best uses of Web 2.0 technology I've seen so far. Regardless of whether you feel that Wikipedia content is reliable, what Pratt is doing with her students is providing them instant access to real-world experiences in their field. Rather than setting up controlled academic experiments using other students, she's requiring students to assess content, research other sources to determine bias, interact with others in the same field, and ultimately draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia's edit process is often hotly debated, and learning to work with some of the extreme personalities in that forum can only help the students, who will undoubtedly have to deal with many of the same personality types later on in their careers.

In addition, Pratt's students are getting a lesson in critical thinking. Especially with regard to the credentials scandal, viewing existing articles on the site is a test of how well you can evaluate articles for bias. Did someone have an agenda when they were writing the article? How well did the original author(s) evaluate their sources? What other information should have been included, or should be removed?

Pratt really has an original approach, and it's one I'd really like to see more universities adopt. Not only can it help the students, but it sure could help provide some great content to more Web 2.0 sites, not only Wikipedia.