Wednesday, August 30, 2006

“Best Practices” – Defined Usefully? [TLT-SWG-25]

Context: Early today I was arguing with myself that we should NOT claim that our online workshops offer “Best Practices.”

Problem: “Best Practices” is a term implying a level of certainty and ease of comparison unlikely to be achieved in most human endeavor – except by those who oversimplify or cannot perceive the full complexity of their surroundings.

Solution? Define the term “best practices” as: using reasonable standards of effectiveness and efficiency, adopting widely accepted research and evaluation procedures, and pursuing continual, incremental improvement… while acknowledging the legitimate value of experience, observation, and judgment.

Conflicting Views?

  • “Best practices are defined as strategies, activities, or approaches that have been shown through research and evaluation to be effective and/or efficient.”
    - Fla. Dept. of Educ. http://www.fldoe.org/cc/Retention/
  • “…Best practice is a management idea, now out of favour, which asserts that there is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive or reward that is more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other technique, method, process, etc…”
    - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_practice

MORE DEFINITIONS OF "BEST PRACTICES"

A best practice is a technique or methodology that, through experience and research, has proven to reliably lead to a desired result. A commitment to using the best practices in any field is a commitment to using all the knowledge and technology at one's disposal to ensure success. The term is used frequently in the fields of health care, government administration, the education system, project management, hardware and software product development, and elsewhere.

In software development, a best practice is a well-defined method that contributes to a successful step in product development.

- Whatis.com http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci498678,00.html

Best practice is a management idea, now out of favour, which asserts that there is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive or reward that is more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other technique, method, process, etc.

However, the notion of a best practice is not new. Frederick Taylor said as much nearly 100 years ago. “Among the various methods and implements used in each element of each trade there is always one method and one implement which is quicker and better than any of the rest.” This viewpoint came to be known as the one best way. In modern parlance, best practice.

History, however, is filled with examples of people who were unwilling to accept the industry standard as the best way to do anything. The rate of enormous technological change over the past century bears witness to this fact.

The Japanese word kaizen has been imported into Western organizational language and stresses the importance of efforts to improve constantly. This ethos is antithetical to the commonly accepted notions of best practice. In fact, best practice can breed a complacent attitude. Some organizations wear it as a badge of honor, believing that having adopted this technique, method or process that a particular organizational problem has been solved and no further improvements are necessary. But, in reality, best practice could be nothing more than mediocrity in a different context, a form of unplanned obsolescence.

- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_practice

A management idea which asserts that there is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive or reward that is more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other technique, method, process, etc. The idea is that with proper processes, checks, and testing, a project can be rolled out and completed with fewer problems and unforseen complications.

In real-world application, Best Practice, is a very useful concept. Despite the need to improve on processes as times change and things evolve, Best Practice, is considered by some to be a business buzz word used to describe the process of developing and following a standard way of doing things which multiple organisations can utilise for management, policy, and especially software systems.

The notion of 'best practices' does not commit people or companies to one inflexible, unchanging practice. Instead, Best Practices is a philosophical approach based around continuous learning and continual improvement.

- ManagementGlossary.info. http://managementglossary.info/index.php?a=term&d=1&q=Best+Practice&gclid=CO2WpfPLh4cCFSBYSAodvgrLrw

Friday, August 18, 2006

"Twins - Names" [Almost 2 minutes audio]

Identity, authenticity, and accurate labeling keep getting more important on the Web - and elsewhere!
"Twins - Names," another Boudreaux story is available
[Almost 2 minutes Audio - Cajun Academic Humor]

For more Boudreaux stories - Cajun Academic Humor - go to:
http://www.tltgroup.org/listserv/tlt-swg.html
I hope you enjoy them!

Steve Gilbert
NOTE: David E. Boudreaux, native and resident of Thibodaux, La., is Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Nicholls State University. We appreciate the warmth, good nature, and underlying care for humanity that often emerge from his unique "Cajun Academic Humor." Boudreaux's stories provide welcome breaks in our ever-busier, ever more fragmented lives, and help us regain a broader, healthier perspective.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Colbert's "Wikiality" - Weakening Chains of Credibility

The chains of credibility are weakening.
Facts and truth are losing the power to sway opinion and decisions.
How can we simultaneously depend on and distrust public sources of information?

Many professions still require the highest standards of evidence, attribution, and reason: librarians, scholars, scientists. They can lead the way to responsible usage of wikis and other rapidly emerging Web options – “Web 2.0,” “Social Networking” etc.. They can re-strengthen the chains of credibility. Who else can help?

Stephen Colbert's humorous pseudo attack on Wikipedia reflects this paradox. He "... praised Wikipedia for its fungible factuality. ...'Wikiality,' the idea that if you claim something to be true and enough people agree with you, it becomes true. ..."
- From: "It's on Wikipedia, So It Must Be True" By Frank Ahrens, Sunday, August 6, 2006; F07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500114_pf.html

SEE BELOW FOR COMMENTS ABOUT COLBERT'S "ATTACK" ON WIKIPEDIA

FOR MORE ABOUT WIKIS:

Upcoming online workshop about Wikis:

http://planning.tltgroup.org/buildfirstwikiFall2006/workshop.htm

http://www.tltgroup.org/Registration/DescriptionPage/blogswikis.htm

MORE EXCERPTS FROM:
"It's on Wikipedia, So It Must Be True"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500114_pf.html

By Frank Ahrens, Sunday, August 6, 2006; F07

"...On Monday's night's "Colbert Report" ...Stephen Colbert praised Wikipedia for its fungible factuality. ...'Wikiality,' the idea that if you claim something to be true and enough people agree with you, it becomes true. ...

"...Wikipedia's peer review comes from a coterie of interested parties -- citizen editors -- on particular topics, and each person can have conflicting interpretations of fact. Such problems have led to Wikipedia recently barring new or anonymous users from editing the entry on Israel, for instance.

"...Colbert then urged viewers to take part in rewriting history and fact.

"...Wikipedia's truth-squadders ... locked down 20 entries on elephants to all but longtime users. They did the same to Colbert's entry, and they barred the screen name StephenColbert from making further changes. The last move is more symbolic than practical; there's no way of knowing whether StephenColbert is the Stephen Colbert -- the real one or the character -- from the show.

"Then Wikipedia took the smart step of posting the pre-Colbert entries alongside the many, many post-Colbert ones to show exactly what was changed and when it was changed by subsequent editors.

"The whole process has a mind-boggling, recursive-loop feel to it, as one Wiki-editor edits an entry and seconds later, another re-edits it. At one point, a post-Colbert entry took on a "yes, you did/no, you didn't" tone. Gaah!

"...If Wikipedia's DNA prevents it from hosting a single standard for truth -- or truthiness -- then its sources of information need to be evident and their tracks easily seen so readers can have as many facts as possible to determine their accuracy. Not, of course, that anyone would or should use Wikipedia -- or really, anything else besides this column -- as a single and authoritative source on any topic.


COMMENTS ABOUT COLBERT'S "ATTACK" ON WIKIPEDIA FROM
[ili-l] re: Stephen Colbert v. Wikipedia

a. From Neal, Jason
http://lists.ala.org/wws/arcsearch_id/ili-l/2006-08/6D8CAC895F95814FA9CD510290ABA61C072AA1F1@MAILFS1.uta.edu

Date: 2006 13:10:34 -0500; Thread-index: Aca8nEZeOU4GmY72RpaU2jB0QPnHBAAAEaAg

In any case, I don't think the sketch actually tried defaming Wikipedia.

I think it was a pretty tame and witty sketch pointing to its flaws, including the ways in which it could be manipulated for propaganda purposes that distort reality. It also provides a good counterpoint to the uncritical info-libertarianism (and perhaps postmodernism) of those
who sing its praises. As for Colbert's act of "vandalism," I don't think it's any worse than someone posting something totally inaccurate; before the "tonight's word" clip about "Wikiality," Colbert changed some things in his Wikipedia entry to give it more "truthiness." Wikipedia also leaves itself open to similar acts of vandalism (or "vandalism"), which requires a level of vigilance that more static resources don't need.

However, looking at the other side of Wikipedia's flexibility, it also has the potential to be much more in-depth than traditional reference resources. It may require more vigilance and "buy-in" from various constituencies, but a good balance of openness and standards could make Wikipedia a formidable intellectual tool.”

Date: 10 Aug 2006 14:00:00 -0400; References: <44d9f6e5.2000708@yorku.ca>; Thread-index: Aca8nS+UtiXTpUwWRLimZozSZC9NIQACCyL


"I agree with Mark Robertson. It does not serve our students to simply tell them that Wikipedia is bad, and that they shouldn't use it. It does nothing to promote the critical thinking abilities of our students, and is similar to telling them that .edu web sites are always more reliable than .com web sites, ignoring such reputable and valuable web sites as nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is probably more reliable than your average Web site. The following is an article from Nature which compares the reliability of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html "

Ben Turner, Information Literacy Librarian, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY