|
21 Mar 11 - 05:02 PM (#3118524) Subject: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: VirginiaTam This QWIKI instant presentation generator draws together information from wikipedia and pictures and puts them together in a presentation. You type in a subject and it does all the work. Quite fun and gratifying for the first couple of goes. There is an option to improve the finished product, but only lets you add links to pictures. youtube videos and correct sound quality pronunciation in the recording. Apparently you cannot add extra research. Link to the Mudcat Cafe presentation below http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Mudcat_Caf%C3%A9 So how many students will try to pass off these presentations as their own work before your average teacher cottons on? |
|
21 Mar 11 - 05:05 PM (#3118527) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: GUEST,999 Lots. |
|
21 Mar 11 - 06:29 PM (#3118578) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: Will Fly Just tried it out on a few topics - pretty crude results so far... |
|
21 Mar 11 - 06:39 PM (#3118587) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: VirginiaTam Only provides info from the top of the wikipedia page, Will. If it permitted you to modify and expand on that info it would be pretty cool. It also provides related topics to research which on my Steampunk search were interesting. |
|
21 Mar 11 - 06:53 PM (#3118596) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: Beer Well I have been typing many different place and it is a lot of fun. I can see where this would be a handy tool for young students. ad. |
|
22 Mar 11 - 02:23 PM (#3119162) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: michaelr Tried the link - "Could not find a Quiki presentation by that name" |
|
22 Mar 11 - 06:32 PM (#3119344) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: Joe_F Its pronunciation of "mudcatters" is odd. |
|
22 Mar 11 - 06:38 PM (#3119351) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: frogprince Haven't had a bad qwiki yet. |
|
22 Mar 11 - 06:48 PM (#3119360) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: Jack Campin It seems to be limited in what it accepts as a subject - you can't combine multiple terms unless the compound is already known to Wikipedia. I tried to create one using the topic "sodomizing donkeys" and it gave up. There must be entries on both donkeys and sodomy, so why can't it just wing it? |
|
23 Mar 11 - 02:48 PM (#3119946) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: VirginiaTam Oh bless you Jack... first good belly laugh I have had in a long while. |
|
23 Mar 11 - 03:05 PM (#3119961) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: gnu froggy... that you know of. >;-) |
|
23 Mar 11 - 08:31 PM (#3120113) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: The Fooles Troupe Well Jack, I figure that if enough of us try a particular topic, it might learn .... |
|
23 Mar 11 - 08:37 PM (#3120119) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: The Fooles Troupe I like the line that says "Sign up for Qwiki of the Day emails" You can get it by email now? Wow! |
|
24 Mar 11 - 05:26 PM (#3120690) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: 3refs Virginia Tam I liked that Qwiki thing. Not what I expected, but liked it all the same! |
|
24 Mar 11 - 08:36 PM (#3120834) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: The Fooles Troupe Oooooooooooooooooooooo...... |
|
25 Mar 11 - 02:26 PM (#3121445) Subject: RE: BS: QWIKI: good or bad? From: gnu You have to sign up for email. It's all over the net. All ya gotta do is flip the switch to manual. |