Some Teachers Embracing Wikipedia, While Others Blame It
from the time-to-join-this-century dept
We've seen this before, of course. There are teachers and professors out there who blame Wikipedia for mistakes students make, and even those who demand that the entire Wikipedia be blocked in schools. However, there are those who are a lot more reasonable about it, recognizing that Wikipedia is just one source among many, and there's value in embracing Wikipedia: teaching kids what it is and how to use it reliably. That seems likely to be a lot more effective and useful for training kids how to critically judge the reliability of information out in the real world. Blocking, banning or blaming Wikipedia seems only designed to put one's head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. That's not preparing anyone for the real world.Techdirt reader cram writes in to point out two contrasting articles that show this dichotomy of thought in action. First is a report out of Scotland last week blaming Wikipedia for kids getting failing grades. This, of course, seems ridiculous. What it really means is that teachers have failed to actually teach kids how to use Wikipedia properly. It's not the fault of Wikipedia -- which is merely an information source. It's a failure of teachers to teach kids how to properly use it. That's why it's nice to see the corresponding article, where students in Australia are now going to have a course available on how to use Wikipedia. That seems a lot smarter than just blaming Wikipedia.
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
Filed Under: australia, blame, scotland, teaching, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I don't understand why kids can't, unless they don't want them to learn.. (cough, cough) No Child Left Behind (Cough) But after all, Karl Marx was a master at societal change, with most propaganda being pushed in primary school years.
Why limit information to only those with a need to know..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that young kids are usually not taught that information found in certain places can be unreliable. Wikipedia, and the internet as a whole, allows them access to a huge amount of information, more than their parents could ever dream of accessing at school. However, some of that information is biased, some misleading and some outright false.
The fix is very simple - at an appropriate age (i.e. when online research may become a factor in their work), introduce lessons on how to research, how to evaluate a source and how to separate facts from fiction. These are valuable skills in later life when dealing with everything from salesmen to politicians, so it's a good thing that Wikipedia might force this to be encouraged. Unless the schools just ban the thing, in which case they're idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's very sad
Obviously, theres an influence at work here. I hardly believe the teachers are coming up with this shit on their own, they are really too busy with homework to be that devious. No, I think its far more likely that someone else is planting these ideas in their heads. So who would likely be responsible for brainwashing teachers into thinking that the internet is making kids stupid. Who stands to benefit? Nobody I know of, except textbook publishers, who also happen to publish encyclopedias as well.
Someone is pushing an agenda on these teachers, and it is seriously impeding the learning capabilities of these kids. Does shop class limit you to a hammer? No, you use power tools. Should a research paper limit you to paper books? No, you should be able to use search engines and even OMG "online knowledge sources"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's very sad
So, starting with Wikipedia? Great! Stopping there? Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On being a student...
I asked him why he allowed us to use Wikipedia as a source. And he clearly said that all the terms that he gives us he has already checked out on Wikipedia. If there is a problem with it than he corrects it.
I think if more instructors took a proactive view of Wikipedia instead of a reactive position. If more teachers were involved with Wikipedia wouldn't that make it a better source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here's an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably not - that's too close to independent thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I certainly wouldn't cite Wikipedia directly in a research paper, but it is a good source for directions to go in more directed research. Then site the more direct sources.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wondering's post
Research is all about your trust network. If you see it yourself, you trust it. If your parents tell it to you, you probably trust it. If your teachers tell it to you... maybe. And so on.
Anyhow, my point is this: Wikipedia is just one of many sources. Cross-referencing is the best way to confirm the accuracy of your information. Pointing out that you have to double-check Wikipedia information as a reason not to use it makes no sense -- you should be double checking your research whether Wikipedia or otherwise.
Long-winded rant aside, to respond to the point you put forth: a good and valid reason to use Wikipedia is that it's easily and conveniently accessible to anyone with internet access. Hyperlinks make it particularly easy to search a topic comprehensively without having to find and dig up 100 different books. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is not The Solution any more than any other book is - but for those who are the littlest bit web savvy, Wikipedia is an excellent source of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell?
It's that simple. Jesus. Read it to get basic idea, double check with a source that your teacher allows (which will invariably say exactly the same thing, but in much more complex language) to make sure that it's not completely wrong. Bam. Course done. Class dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I get so annoyed at teachers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I get so annoyed at teachers...
It's a standard for online encyclopedias, yes. What else would you like it to be a standard for? Truth (big T)? We call collections of words meant to be a standard of Truth something else: scripture. And that hasn't really been helpful for us ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Students need guidance!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my experience, Wikipedia is a place where misogynistic cyberbullies go to harass independent artists and riot grrrls. Case in point: Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, a leading artist and tarot card reader, had her article yanked from Wikipedia for no apparent reason. And when her sister Mary Spicuzza, a print journalist, wrote an article about it, she was forced to resign for “violating journalistic ethics.” You can read about it here:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/
BTW, you can also read what happened according to the creep who sexually harassed Jeanne Marie on Wikipedia starting here::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#Atte mpted_Outing_of_Wikipedia_Editor_User:Griot_by_Tawdry_Tabloid_Journalist
Remember: Information is only as good as its source. Garbage in; garbage out…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with Savyo
Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly on Feb 26th, 2008, 13:55 pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with David King
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]