Yes, there are risks – not just with inappropriate interaction (eg conflict) or content but also with factually incorrect content. I find teachers are often prepared for the former but not the latter.

Please pardon me for taking years to get back to this post, lost long ago in a reverse bookmark sync. I understand now that you were suggesting that teachers be aware of risks associated with peer-to-peer interactions on wikis, and have monitoring plans and intervention strategies in place, ready for use as necessary.

Thanks again for your thought provoking post and response to my first comment on it. There’s no need to reply again. Cheers.

I felt the planning process might highlight that there was a risk of faulty knowledge, not prevent it. But it could also identify strategies for dealing with those risks.

I’m not advocating ‘contextualization and explanation of all proposals, recommendations, or suggestions that students make to one another in online environments’. I am advocating teachers be aware of the risks and be prepared to intervene where necessary, not as a matter of course.

Thanks for your comment and questions!

In this post, you express concern about the accuracy of wiki contributions from students, which is of similar concern to language teachers. You allude to consequences of peer uptake of such faulty information or presentation, and cross-link to holistic planning processes which might alleviate, if not negate uptake of erroneous information from peer wiki contributors (Holistic Alignment Module, 06 June 2008).

In a nutshell, you seem to be advocating contextualization and explanation of all proposals, recommendations, or suggestions that students make to one another in online environments. Moreover, you seem to be modeling that sort of contextualization and explanation in these cross-linked posts.

Are these hyper-textual interpretations of your posts far off the mark?

Cheers.