User talk:Champlaintest

{{unblock|Hello. I vandalized the Vermont page as part of teaching session on information literacy. I promise that I will not vandalize a wikipedia entry again}}Champlaintest (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC) {{unblock|reason}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Appears to be valid, will assume good faith in this singular instance of vandalism but please do not vandalize again.

Request handled by: Cirt (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're telling the truth... but isn't that somewhat like saying that someone spraying graffiti onto a building should not face any consequences if they were doing so in the scope of teaching others about urban art forms? I won't personally rule on the unblock request, but allowing this sort of action to slide would set a bad precedent. On the other hand, this appears to be one incident for which no warning was issued, so perhaps a second chance may be a reasonable solution. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Champlaintest (talk · contribs) - Is this the course you are referring to? Information Literacy at Champlain. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the course I am teaching does require the development of that information literacy competency. In retrospect, it would have been better for me to have shown my students the preview of the vandalised page rather than to have saved the page. On the other hand, I wanted to give them as dramatic as illustration as possible of the dangers of overreliance on Wikipedia. I hope to mention the correction of the page and blocking of the account as part of a continuing discussion of information literacy. Champlaintest (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time just find some pre-existing vandalism and show them how to fix it, eh? Guy (Help!) 22:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overreliance aside, the danger that your experience tried to demonstrate was quickly thwarted. The lesson that your students should learn is that they should not trust everything they read, here on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Because although it is much easier to introduce those dangers on Wikipedia than, let's say, a book, at least on Wikipedia you have one thousand eyes monitoring them as they try to creep in. A book does not. A book could say that Vermont was claimed by Finland and still be published by the thousands. You see, it is true that one should not overrely on Wikipedia, but when it comes to reliance I believe that the singular nature of Wikipedia's content building has made it quite a remarkably trustworthy source on its own. Especially when you know how to work with it. Hús ö nd 23:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a lighter note, welcome back to Wikipedia. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]