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 >