Dear Mary Ann,
    A wikitextbook is one developed in the same way as the Wikipedia; anyone
can contribute or revise a section that is already completed.  Beyond that,
I can think of no better way to respond than to quote the Wikipedia, itself.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/ or /ˌwiki-/) is a multilingual
Web-based free-content encyclopedia. It exists as a wiki, written
collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be changed by
anyone with access to a web browser and an Internet connection. It currently
has over 1,000,000 articles.  Wikipedia's slogan is "The free encyclopedia
that anyone can edit" and the project is described by its co-founder Jimmy
Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free
encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the
planet in their own language."

Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity,[1] and its
success has spawned several sister projects. There has, however, been
controversy over its reliability.  Recently Nature magazine compared the
accuracy of wii articles with those in Britannica, and found the Britannica
to be only slightly better in terms of accuracy.

    Teachers who are working with wikis argue that in many parts of the
world students cannot aford to buy textbooks, and if a broad enough group of
contributors can be assembled, the result will bring textbooks to schools in
rural areas or in developing countries that could never pay for traditional
books.  Beyond that, this approach makes students responsible for their own
learning and fosters connectivism.

Those opposed focus on the fact that the "text" can change from one time you
visit it too the next.  Contributors can submit material that is clearly
wrong, or, more likely, biased in less obvious ways.  It seems to me that
the argument comes down to a question of Process vs. Product.  People who
give more value to a fixed and stable book are unlikely to endorse a wiki
text; those who feel that the learning process is more important are more
likely to accept the instability of the text in exchange for a more
involving learning process.  Some wiki users seem to favor a hybrid
approach, where there is a core set of material prepared by the teacher)
that cannot be edited, with the students or other collaborators adding
material to this core.  As far as I can tell, this doesn't completely
satisfy anyone.

        I hope that this helps.

                        Cordially,
                        Harry


> From: Mary Ann Dowdell <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Teaching Breakfast List <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:31:06 -0500
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Software Bottlenecks for Students
> 
> Ok, Harry, now you've peaked my interest.  What is a wiki text?  Anyone?
> 
> Mary Ann Dowdell
>