I wouldn’t call myself a huge fan of Lost, but I find myself watching it faithfully each week. Every now and then there’s an episode that makes me glad I do. Last week’s episdode, “Greatest Hits,” was such an episode.

A character was planning a suicide mission in order to save the rest of the castaways. Throughout the episode he was making a list of the five best moments of his life. As he added each item to the list, we flashed back to that moment in his life. He called it his “Greatest Hits” list. What a wonderful thing to do.

I’d like to invite you to make your own Greatest Hits list. What you come up with will probably be too personal to post here, but I offer you the exercise all the same.

What five moments in your life would make your Greatest Hits list?

Since we’ve been talking about Ken Jennings and Jeopardy, I’ve been thinking about the Cheers episode “What is…Cliff Clavin?” in which Cliff Clavin, a postal carrier who lives with his mother, goes on Jeopardy. As a bar know-it-all, Cliff’s reputation and self-image are on the line. Guest star Alex Trebek reads off the categories:

CIVIL SERVANTS
STAMPS FROM AROUND THE WORLD
MOTHERS AND SONS
BEER
BAR TRIVIA
CELIBACY

And then Cliff knows this is his game. This is his dream board.

What’s your dream board on Jeopardy? You could answer this question in two different ways. You could either choose the six categories you’re strongest in, and that you would most like to see if you were an actual contenstant on Jeopardy. (I’m pretty good with questions about Shakespeare.) Or, as in the example above, you could create a mini-autobiography by choosing six categories that sum up your personality and interests. Or maybe that’s the same list.

What categories would be on your “dream board”?

At the recent Republican debate, the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution. Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo all raised their hands.

And this is America, where people are free to believe anything they like. But these are people who are running to be the president of the most powerful nation on earth. The next president must be able to lead the world in dealing with the crisis of global climate change. The next president will probably have to revisit stem cell research. The next president will possibly have to deal with another epidemic. All of these things are difficult to do when you don’t believe in science. Just ask President Bush.

But these three guys raise their hands, and it’s buried in the middle of the story, after we finish talking about the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Why is this not the top story? If they had said they were athiests, it would be the top story. If they had said they were atheists, that would be the end of their careers in American politics. If they had said they were agnostic, that would be the end of their careers in American politics.

So many of our most celebrated figures are openly athiest, from scientists to artists, from business leaders to Karl Rove. But not one of the candidates running for president.

Why is disbelief in evolution more acceptable in American politics today than disbelief in God?

A reader has written in with an ethical dilemma. Since he has requested to remain anonymous, we will refer to him as “Busy in the Big Apple.”

Dear Shakespeare Teacher,

My wife and I enjoy attending summer performances of Shakespeare in the Park. As you know, while the tickets are distributed free of charge, patrons must wait in line – usually for several hours – for two seats each. Since I work near Central Park and have the flexibility to take an extended lunch hour, the waiting typically falls to me.

Last summer, though, I came up with a different idea, something I like to think of as a new paradigm. I hired the vagrant who panhandles in front of my office building, and whom I occasionally patronize, to go to the park, wait in line for about three hours, and pick up two tickets. I offered him $20 and carfare. He agreed and brought back the tickets. I paid him and threw in a five dollar bonus. I thought the scheme was a win-win. The panhandler earned some honest money, my work productivity was enhanced, and my wife and I enjoyed an outstanding performance of Macbeth.

Not until after the play, though, did I reveal to my wife how I had obtained the tickets. She was horrified. She says that I cheated two other theatergoers and took advantage of a needy person, most likely enabling any substance abuse habit he may have. I understand her arguments, but I must demur. Friends tell me that wealthy donors get free tickets to Shakespeare in the Park without the wait. I’d rather subsidize a down-and-outer, whom I see as master of his own destiny.

Summer is fast approaching, as my co-conspirator reminds me almost every day. My wife and I have agreed to turn the issue over to you and your readers, lovers of the Bard as they must be. If you validate my approach, I will go the same route this summer as last. If not, I’ll grab a folio and head for the hawthorn-brake.

What should they do?

Alberto Gonzales? Harry Reid? Paul Wolfowitz? Simon Cowell? President Bush?

Who should resign?

First of all, I want to thank everyone who answered last week’s question about the reliability of Wikipedia. The discussion there was one of the most vibrant of the blog so far. Between that and the subsequent post about Fox News, it made me realize that there is a larger question we need to address here: What does it mean for a source to be reliable?

The answer may be changing with the culture, and some quick background reading may help support that potentially controversial claim. Cynthia points us to the article in the The Chronicle for Higher Education The Intellectual in the Infosphere, which hits a lot of key issues in a short space and is definitely worth checking out. I also have an earlier post about the changing nature of information in the digital age. And then there’s the Karl Fisch video.

So with all that in mind, it’s as important as it’s ever been to ask what it actually means for a source to be reliable. Does it simply mean that we can count on it for accurate facts? Or do we require more from our sources than just fact checking?

Is it important for a source to give us balance between different points of view? Or can a source be reliable and just give us one point of view? And if the source only provides one point of view, how important is it for the source to share our values? Could different sources be reliable for different people, or is reliable meant to be an objective term?

Is a source that provides a more depth of coverage always more reliable than a superficial one? Does quality of writing affect reliability? Does a proven track record count for anything? Or do these factors co-exist with reliability without affecting it? Is a primary source always more reliable than a secondary source? Or can secondary sources bring qualities to the table that can increase reliability?

And does reliability cover just facts? Or can sources also provide opinions? Are you more likely to be persuaded to share an opinion that’s expressed by a source you already trust? Is that a part of reliability? Is it even possible for a source to be value neutral? Or does a source always have an inherent value system by the choices it makes in what information to present? If a source presents information in a way that doesn’t fit your worldview, which sources can affect your willingness to reevaluate that worldview, and which sources would simply make you doubt the source?

Does the element of time affect reliability? The book you purchase in the book store may have been written months ago, while a website might be updated while you’re reading it. Does this affect reliability, and if so, in which direction?

Once you’ve answered these questions for yourself, I’d like you to consider the relative reliability of the following twenty sources when it comes to information, perspectives, and opinions about, say, the Bush administration:

A. Joe Biden on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
B. Wolf Blitzer on CNN
C. Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
D. Noam Chomsky in a new book published by AK Press
E. Katie Couric on The CBS Evening News
F. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007 edition (Hardcover)
G. Thomas Friedman in a New York Times Op-Ed
H. Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker
I. Brit Hume on Fox News
J. Russ Kick in a new book published by the Disinformation Company
K. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show
L. Michael Moore in a new documentary
M. Sean Penn while accepting an acting award
N. Tony Snow from the White House briefing room
O. Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show
P. The White House website
Q. Christie Todd Whitman on Real Time with Bill Maher
R. Wikipedia in an entry with no controversy alerts
S. Bob Woodward in a new book published by Simon & Schuster
T. Markos Zuniga on his blog The Daily Kos

I lettered them instead of numbering them because you may wish, as part of your answer to the question below, to rank some or all of these twenty sources in order from most reliable to least reliable. If two of these sources gave conflicting information, which would you be more open to, and why? What if their information didn’t conflict, but they selcted facts that promoted different biases? What if their facts were the same, but they presented conflicting opinions?

What does it mean to you for a source to be reliable?

Two weeks ago, the Question of the Week was about books different people were reading. Pensive Ro picked up on the idea and posted the question on her own blog (which you should all visit several times a day until she reaches her 20,000 hits). In the comments section, I mentioned Wikipedia and that sparked a discussion of its own.

Personally, I love Wikipedia. I probably access it more often than any other website. I even made a game out of it which I continued to post to the blog long after it became clear that most people didn’t want to play it. Wikipedia is great for getting background information, or exploring a topic you know very little about. It’s great for learning about new topics and exploring just to see what’s out there.

I would not use Wikipedia to learn more about an area that I’m already an expert in, and I would never cite Wikipedia as a source. You never really know who the author is, and the articles are in constant flux. I wouldn’t respect any argument that relied on information from Wikipedia to make its case. This Onion article is way over the top, granted, but it does make a few valid points.

I was giving a presentation once, and said (after giving the above argument) that there had been studies done that demonstrate that Wikipedia is just as reliable of a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Someone asked me what my source for that was, and I couldn’t resist answering “Wikipedia” though I had heard it in legitimate news outlets as well.

Fine word, legitimate. We know that news sources have bias. Could it be that Wikipedia’s negotiated definition of reality is more objective than any one source can be? Perhaps. And perhaps this is part of a larger trend of how knowledge is now constructed.

For their part, the Wikipedia folks recognize the limitations of their medium and have launched a sister project, Citizendium, which is a Wikipedia-like online interactive encyclopedia that requires contributors to use their real names and is given “gentle expert oversight” by Ph.Ds. Full disclosure: I have a Ph.D. in Shakespeare Teachery, and I can tell you that not all Ph.Ds agree on everything. Or anything, really. You’d think it would work on the level of an encyclopedia, but even many supposed facts are in dispute.

Speaking of Ph.Ds, something interesting just happened over at Weblogg-ed. Will Richardson posted an article about a new degree in Social Computing which he thinks is worthy of ridicule. Some interpreted this as a rebuke of higher education in general, and a fierce debate was sparked. Richardson then issued a clarification. Definitely worth checking out.

What’s your opinion of Wikipedia and the changing nature of authority?

Why is this night different from all other nights?

What are you reading right now?

I don’t mean right this second, because obviously you’re reading this blog. That’s because you’re one of the heroes.

But in general, what have you been reading lately? Is it something for work? For school? For pleasure? Professional development? Have you read it before, or is it something new? How did you hear about it?

Or do you “not have time” to read?

Right now, I’m reading The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker and Awakening the Heart: Exploring Poetry in Elementary and Middle School by Georgia Heard.

I’m reading The Blank Slate for pleasure, mostly because I just taught a lesson on nature vs. nurture for my education students, and I’ve lately become very interested in Pinker. So far, I’m really enjoying it. Pinker is a brilliant mind with an engaging writing style, writing on topics that meet where science intersects with politics. Great stuff!

I’m reading Awakening the Heart in anticipation of a poetry unit I’ll be facilitating in various junior high school classrooms in New York City after Spring Break. I’ve really just started the book, so perhaps I’ll have more to say on it anon.

What are you reading right now?

One question that kept coming up in the Shakespeare in American Education conference was “Why Shakespeare?”. Why does this one author out of all of the other authors deserve such a place in the canon? Why spend valuable instruction time in school working on Shakespeare? Is Shakespeare useful in teaching other subjects, or is Shakespeare a topic worth studying in its own right?

Can the answer be agreed upon in the same way as “Why arithmetic?” or “Why writing?” pretty much can be? Or is the answer to “Why Shakespeare?” too ineffable to be codified in that way. Can there ever really be an answer? And if there can’t, how can we justify teaching it?

Of course, all of this begs the question, and you may choose instead to answer in the negative. Is Shakespeare’s popularity a result of a social and political construction, and not based on the merit of the work? Is there some grain of truth to the high school student’s suspicion that it’s all just a scam? Is there a more deserving candidate, or is the elevation of a single individual counter-productive to the idea of a canon?

Nevertheless, I ask you…

Why Shakespeare?