I think Wikipedia is amazing. Yes it has its downsides but overall it is a cornucopia of information and fascinating trivia. Most of what I read has been quite accurate as compared to other sources of information.
beats encyclopedia brittanica etc etc as it has a far wider range of topis, and has the space to go into depth. Multiple contributions also can allow for boraderf perspectives to be represented. But one has to wonder how accurate any encyclopedia can be when there is always someone to decide what is worthy, and what is an accepted viewpoint on something.
Difference between empirical history versus academic discourse I guess.
I don't understand why some people don't like Wikipedia. If I ever need to look something up, that's where I start! Like rjd_jr, usually the things there are pretty accurate.
What a pity more of the global warming deniers, fairy-story-believing Bible bashers and their ilk don't read up a few more facts in Wikipedia before commenting here
One problem with Wikipedia is not their fault but the fault of students who know how to copy/paste term reports without having the brains to change all the nouns from link-blue to black. Plus, of course, they don't actually read what they've copied.
On the plus side for teachers, it's much easier to find where the student plagiarized their reports - just a simple google search will usually provide a few thousand sites.
I've learned alot from wikipedia but i'd hardly reference it as the ulitimate teaching tool. Yes maybe to create hand outs for short "science". I admit i've used it before to study and copy paragraphs into my own words back in the day. haha. Its definatley a good "what does that mean" tool.
8 Comments
rjd_jr at 08:30 AM JST - 12th May
I think Wikipedia is amazing. Yes it has its downsides but overall it is a cornucopia of information and fascinating trivia. Most of what I read has been quite accurate as compared to other sources of information.
notimpressed at 01:34 PM JST - 12th May
beats encyclopedia brittanica etc etc as it has a far wider range of topis, and has the space to go into depth. Multiple contributions also can allow for boraderf perspectives to be represented. But one has to wonder how accurate any encyclopedia can be when there is always someone to decide what is worthy, and what is an accepted viewpoint on something. Difference between empirical history versus academic discourse I guess.
pandachan at 12:13 AM JST - 13th May
I don't understand why some people don't like Wikipedia. If I ever need to look something up, that's where I start! Like rjd_jr, usually the things there are pretty accurate.
OhioDonna at 06:39 AM JST - 13th May
Wikipedia rocks. Sometimes it rocks back and forth but sometimes the entries are way off the rocker.
frontandcentre at 02:23 PM JST - 13th May
What a pity more of the global warming deniers, fairy-story-believing Bible bashers and their ilk don't read up a few more facts in Wikipedia before commenting here
borscht at 11:07 PM JST - 13th May
One problem with Wikipedia is not their fault but the fault of students who know how to copy/paste term reports without having the brains to change all the nouns from link-blue to black. Plus, of course, they don't actually read what they've copied.
On the plus side for teachers, it's much easier to find where the student plagiarized their reports - just a simple google search will usually provide a few thousand sites.
1keiron at 12:26 AM JST - 14th May
I've learned alot from wikipedia but i'd hardly reference it as the ulitimate teaching tool. Yes maybe to create hand outs for short "science". I admit i've used it before to study and copy paragraphs into my own words back in the day. haha. Its definatley a good "what does that mean" tool.
WhiteHawk at 02:34 AM JST - 14th May
I wonder if anybody has asked John Seigenthaler about this.
Register or login to add a comment!