Qiao Hooray for field trips! Getting out E the classroom can be the best way to learn By Naomi Ambrose arlier this month I went on a He trip with other students and faculty members from the Earth Sciences Department at Douglas College to observe and learn about some important geological events and features. We travelled to Abbottsford, Richmond, and Maple Ridge. However, many students don’t like to go on field trips, perhaps because they bring back memories of your dreaded days of high school chemistry, or perhaps because the idea of travelling on a bright yellow school bus doesn’t sound too appealing for your “coolness” level. Yet, during this trip, I discovered the benefits of going on field trips that I’d like to pass on to other students. Field trips are a great way to see the information that you learn in the classroom. I got to see some. fascinating geological features that I’m learning about in my lectures and labs, which helped me to have a better understanding of the course’s concepts. Real-world knowledge is just as important as book knowledge, so take the opportunity to see the practical component of your course syllabus. Field trips also provide you with the opportunity to interact with other students. While I inspected rock samples, other students mentioned their names and reminded me of some of their features that I’d forgotten. Thanks to these students, I can now remember the terms. If you’re rusty on your British Columbian history, or just haven’t explored the other parts of it yet, then a field trip is the perfect opportunity for you. In my case, I am new to Canada and I’m also a history buff, so for me the field trip was an enjoyable journey into BC’s historical vault. For example, I learnt that the Sumas River Reclamation Site in Abbottsford was once a lake until the 1920s, when the water was pumped out to form croplands. I also learned that Kanaka Creek in Richmond was once covered by glaciers millions of years ago during the Ice Age. While visualizing this Ice Age, I realized that field trips are also a great way to relieve stress. When I arrived at some of our locations, I saw rocks, minerals, and lakes that took thousands of years to develop. These natural beauties we take for granted remind us that we should all take some = time to slow down. Even while I was on the bus I saw incredible sights of nature: acres of cornfields, cows and horses grazing on farmlands, ducks swimming in ponds, a mother bear and her two cubs running in fields, the sun glistening on the mighty Fraser River while a speed boat raced by, lush green grass, majestic mountains, and hundreds of fern trees shaped like the Roman Coliseum. Ah yes, nature at its best! And what’s a field trip without some comic relief? From the inquisitive tourist who came to peep at the map our teacher showed us, to the brown miniature schnauzer that jumped on one of the students, field trips are a great way to have some fun and laugh a little. I know I had a great experience and I encourage all students to attend the field trips in their courses because they provide you with a better perspective of your course work while having fun at the same time. Wikipedia’s girl troubles Why aren’t more women contributing to the popular online resource? By Evelyn Cranston (The Capilano Courier — Capilano University) VANCOUVER (CUP) — How much does an ocean sunfish weigh? When was Marie Curie born? Wikipedia is the first search result to show up on most random topics. No matter how obscure, if anyone has given a thought to a certain topic before, there’s likely a stub to prove it. While some . teachers abhor the use of an unreliable, open-edited source, others embrace Wikipedia for keeping abreast of fast- paced subjects. While the Encyclopaedia Britannica would likely be more accurate in, for example, details of WWI, Wikipedia trumps outdated print books in rapidly changing fields, such as neuroscience and digital technology. A study in the peer-reviewed 18 journal Nature states, “Jimmy Wales’ Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries.” One of the best things about Wikipedia is that it draws on the collective knowledge of everyone, ranging from those with a slight interest to those who have dedicated their lives to exploring a certain topic. Anyone is free to modify entries to ensure they’re up to date, accurate and well thought- out. With this wide-open opportunity, however, there are inevitable flaws: a denigration of article quality occurs if someone unqualified or biased chops up an article. But that’s not the only problem. The Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia’s non-profit owner and operator, examined the statistics of contributors and editors in a 2009 study. Out of hundreds of thousands of editors and writers, and out of billions who have knowledge to share, just a slim 13 per cent of contributors are female. Wikipedia, our holistic, online, go-to source of information is supposed to reflect the world views of many. Instead, we’re hearing mainly from formally educated men in their mid-20s. Sue Gardner, an expert in gender disparities in technology, states, “I think that all forms of diversity — geographic, political, ideological, cultural, sexual; age-related, etc. — are important. But having said that, I do think [Wikipedia’s] gender skew is particularly bad.” This gender disparity is reflected in Wikipedia articles. More female Wikipedia contributors would improve the site. In a list of notable scientist biographies, 19 of the 22 featured people were male. The New York Times points to an example where friendship bracelets, a pastime enjoyed primarily by young girls, gets a measly four paragraphs, while toy soldiers and baseball cards are given a thorough examination. From the origins of tech-geek culture, men have dominated. They outnumbered women in video game design and computer technology for 10 years, and only now is the field levelling out. Wikipedia hasn’t kept pace with these industries. Gardner states, “It stems from the way things started in the early days. Wikipedia has been around for 10 years. When it started, the sorts of people who were actively contributing on the internet were STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) people. It was super, super geeky, because contributing anything to the internet was hard back then.” Gardner notes that women have less free time than men, given the “second shift” of housework and child- raising. When women do have free time, studies have shown that they tend to engage in activities that will directly benefit society, such as volunteering, and that they gravitate towards interpersonal, social experiences. By emphasizing that working on Wikipedia does improve the well-being of society, Gardner believes we can start shrinking the gender disparity. Another factor in the gap may be the user-unfriendly interface and occasionally hostile online environment of Wikipedia. Women will generally spend more time on social networking sites connecting with friends than debating accuracies of articles with strangers. Gardner notes that Wikipedia is working on getting rid of the tedious, confusing wiki-syntax that a contributor must learn, as well as making it a more inclusive, friendly and supportive environment. Men tend to put themselves forward and self-nominate when it comes to wiki-editing, whereas women shy away. When Wikipedians asked university professors in India, America, Germany and Canada to assign wiki writing as projects to their students, the gender gap shrunk drastically because women tend not to be underrepresented in these post-secondary schools. Gardner is optimistic about an equalized future for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of the most powerful connecting forces on the internet. It should reflect a diversity of opinions, world-views and scientific findings. Instead, we have thousands of articles written by a similar voice, reflecting a small fraction of the earth’s population.