I concede Wikipedia is not without its problems

I love Wikipedia. I think it has its uses in education, but the challenge, of course, is for us to help students learn to use it appropriately. I wish I could somehow make this happen before they use it inappropriately. On the other hand, inappropriate use sometimes provides me with an opening. Here is an exchange with one of my general education students. The course is theme based and could be something like, let's say, science and art.

To: twice@slac.edu

From: studenta@slac.edu

Hi Dr. Twice: I am curious about a question on the online quiz. The question is "approximately when did synthetic pigments come on the scene?" I answered 200-500 years ago and it was wrong, so I took the test again. The question appeared so I answered 500-1000 years ago even though I was certain it as 200-500 years ago and again it was wrong! I do not understand since everything I have read points to the
1700's and Prussian blue being the first synthetic pigment.

What am I missing?

[Student]


----

To: studenta@slac.edu

From: twice@slac.edu

Hi [Student],

On page 187 in Colour: Why the World isn't Grey, Rissotti explains that the first synthetic pigments were used in the second millennium B.C. (White Lead and Blue Frit, for example). I realize that Wikipedia in one place says Prussian Blue was first, and in another place that it was the first _modern_ synthetic pigment. However, the assigned reading in the Colour course textbook, makes the distinction between natural pigments (minerals), and synthetic ones (those that must be manufactured in some way), without somehow limiting the idea to the modern era.

Please note that Wikipedia is a site with user generated content and, while incredibly helpful, is not necessarily authoritative. This section, and in particular this claim, on the Wikipedia site is not fully referenced, which makes it more questionable. (It is best to confirm these details with other sources.) While the 1700's and on were extremely important in the development and use of synthetic pigments, synthetic pigments were used in antiquity.

-Dr. Twice

I'm in the middle of an ongoing (seven months!) e-mail discussion with my husband, my husband's first cousin once removed, his second cousin (the son of the f.c.o.r) and his sister's husband (my brother-in-law-in-law) on the merits of Wikipedia. The f.c.o.r. thinks it is bad, bad, bad. He has a humanities background, the others, who are more in favor of Wikipedia, have technical backgrounds. I've read several newspaper and magazine articles in the midst of this discussion that speak to this divide. Scientists, in general, are more likely to feel positively about Wikipedia. Reasons suggested include a greater likelihood of participation in the creation of wiki content among scientists, a higher comfort level in the scientific community with on-line collaboration and the earlier adoption of this format by scientists. All of these lead to perhaps more developed and vetted articles in the sciences, leading to more use/trust/participation, leading to more developed and vetted articles, and so on.

I sent the e-mail exchange to f.c.o.r. His response?

"So there!"

In my defense, I never said there weren't any problems. And the pigment entry has been updated now, one of the strengths of a wiki.