Is Wikipedia To Blame For Students' Laziness?
from the so-who's-at-fault-here? dept
Let's get a few things right out in the open: anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, it's never going to be 100% accurate, during breaking news there may be many factual errors posted before the entry is accurate, and considering all this it shouldn't be relied upon as the sole source when doing research. We had to clear that up because apparently some people didn't realize this. Writing for News.com, intern Soumya Srinagesh tells a cautionary tale of writing a "massive second-semester AP English research final project" in 45 minutes using Wikipedia as her only source. One can assume that any serious essay written in such a short time would be pretty poor, particularly if it only used one source. But that's not the point she tries to make. Instead she turns it around, blaming Wikipedia's decentralized editing system and the lack of filters it has in place. Ominously (for the future of America), she says her fellow students generally accept Wikipedia's word as gospel. But again, instead of calling out these students for being lazy (and arguably for being cheaters), it's Wikipedia's fault.Srinagesh and other critics of Wikipedia entirely miss the point about the site. They set up straw men by questioning whether it's 100% accurate, or whether it's always trustworthy. But even if we accept the premise that, say, the Encyclopedia Brittanica is more accurate (albeit less extensive), it would still be wholly unworthy as the sole source for serious research or a term paper. Most papers that students write require some sort of bibliography, and professors always emphasize using multiple sources. That's because the point is to get practice doing real research, not just rewording what was read elsewhere. If a student wants to take a shortcut and skip the point of the assignment, that doesn't seem like Wikipedia's fault.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I have one word...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have one word...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have one word...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have one word...
That's 18 words...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to looking up actual, physical books and magazines? People are getting so lazy nowadays that if they can't find it on the net, they just move on. There are still plenty of scholarly journals and magazines as well as books in the nonfiction section of a library. (oh yeah! The library...I forgot about that.) I can't believe this girl is blaming wikipedia for her lack of effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you really read that article?
She also loaded her column with all sorts of jokes, including a false survey of doctors and a false definition of "Wiki." The column was obviously (to me, at least) meant to be taken lightly, and to admonish herself and her peers for being lazy oafs.
I think Joe either: 1) skimmed the article and missed her point, or 2) read the title of the article and then hunted-down the snippets inside that supported that statement. Either way, I don't believe he read the article from top-to-bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you really read that article?
and God Bless the Internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikipedia is to blame for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Research
Wikipedia IS RESEARCH. It's just one source.
Some studies have actually shown that on scientific entries Wikipedia actually has an average of less errors per topic than the encyclopedia Britanica.
So let's not say that Wikipedia is a bad source for information- it's not. Wikipedia is a great source of information.
The problem isn't that Wikipedia is used as research material- the problem is that it is the ONLY research material used.
Just like you can't get an accurate picture of politics by watching "Fox News" alone- or by reading "The Nation" alone-
if you want to get a full rounded view of a topic you need multiple sources.
So please- let's not emphasize that Wikipedia is less accurate than other sources- (if articles I've read on the topic are true) for most articles it isn't less accurate.
Let's instead emphasize the need for multiple sources of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember Dr. Johnson:
"Working together, it took the forty members of the French Academy fifty-five years to do for the French what Johnson did for the British in twelve years, and Johnson did the central work alone. He called in some transcribing help form a handful of hacks, most of them Scottish, denizens of Grub Street who were gin-soaked and half-dead before they even got started...."
So all this horsehockey about how poorly the Wikidpedia effort will turn out is just that, the dedicated people working away on it will get it right, and it willtake time, just like it took -- is still taking -- the French, but they will eventually get it right, despite the interfering and kibitzing sidelineders, and we will all be better oiff for it, though most of us just sat on the sidelines carping. Mr. Johnson would have something to say about that, and it would cut to the quick, unlike much of the idle commentary about busy people. almacleese, hallowellmaine, under brooding granite hills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Research
Why waste time using something any joker, moron, bigot, or anti-social can go in and edit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember Dr. Johnson:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point is, everyone is up in arms about Wikipedia being a single source of information and a flawed one at that and everyone here starts slamming this girl's article without even reading it.
Look in the mirror, hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't know
Srinagesh is simply describing the use of Wikipedia for assignments requiring the use of sources and whether or not Wikipedia is a viable source.
What article did Joe read?
Where did he get the rope to want to hang Srinagesh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I simply don't believe her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I simply don't believe her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I simply don't believe her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiki-stupidia
Why waste time using something any joker, moron, bigot, or anti-social can go in and edit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Article.
As a constant user of Wikipedia it was nice to be reminded how very untrustable the vast quantity of information on the internet is.
While open-edit projects certainly have their place, it certainly isn't to fill in for actual effort on the part of lazy college "writers".
I wanted to let you know that you made a really good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Students have always been lazy..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly
Wikipedia makes a great scapegoat for these students, but unfortunately I doubt that many teachers are going to pay much attention to the argument being used. My suggestion to lazy students is to start being less lazy, and take responsibility for your school work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NASCAR wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a source none the less
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a source none the less
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Article Was Facetious
She wrote it as a light-hearted nudge to get teens to be more skeptical of what they plagiarize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikipedia
Just because something shows up on google or wikipedia is not enough for people to trust its content or believe in its veracity. I think the point was made very wittily by cnet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem with Wikipedia
Therefore, as a source that cannot be trusted, any respected researcher will never use Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clams make for great masturbatory toys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good god, shut up!
And, I must ask, why in the almighty splunge would somebody write a research paper in 45 minutes and only use one source?
And everything isn't immediately accepted as fact; at any given time there are at least 25 users monitoring Recent Changes and scrutinising every single edit. So shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good point
it seems you're the one setting up the straw men and it has considerably weakened your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response
And as Ta bu shi da yu said before, many people use it as a scapegoat.
Criticising Wikipedia's reliability and using traditional encyclopedias instead is like criticising a car's reliability and walking rather than take the "risk" of driving a car. We don't chastise automobile accident victims because they used an "unsafe car" and didn't just walk. We should do the same for Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
u guys suck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]