Slashdot Mirror
Jimmy Wales Says Students 'Should Use' Wikipedia
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC has up an article chatting with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Wales views the Wikipedia site as an educational resource, and apparently thinks teachers who downplay the site are 'bad educators'. '[A] perceived lack of authority ... has drawn criticism from other information sources. Ian Allgar of Encyclopedia Britannica maintains that, with 239 years of history and rigorous fact-checking procedures, Britannica should remain a leader in authoritative, politically-neutral information. Mr Allgar pointed out the trustworthy nature of paid-for, thoroughly-reviewed content, and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism.'"
Remember, educational institutions depend on a perception of sub-par education when it's acquired through any means other than them and their material. Not entirely unlike the RIAA and the DRM infatuation. If it's not learned through their facilities and one of their "trained educators", it can't possibly be real knowledge!
So they ask Jimmy Wales if he thinks his encyclopedia is a good resource and then pose the same question to Wikipedia's main competitor?
Well color me surprised at the answers.
I touch computers in naughty places
Every fact on Wikipedia has a link back to the primary source. All you have to do is tell kids to look up the fact from the primary source and cite that, and obviously not to cite it if there is no link back or they can't find the material. Any teacher who is too intellectually lazy to take the time to understand this is by definition a bad teacher. You aren't allowed to cite Britannica in any real class either, you have to follow the exact same procedure, so there is no difference. I don't even see how someone could defend a teacher who would lie to kids about the purpose of an encyclopedia.
Students should definitely use Wikipedia as a good place to find real sources. Of course, if they actually cite it, they're freakin' insane and should go back and re-learn how to research.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm a student doing my second degree in a fairly rigorous academic institution. This time it is a humanity degree (As opposed to my first degree - Computer Science).
There is no way referencing Wikipedia is OK. It's not peer reviewed. Not only is the information often wrong, but the information it does has is very biased (which is OK - all information is biased, but you need to see the whole range). Referencing Wikipedia is like saying "Some random guy on the internet once said...". Not exactly a lot of weight.
But using Wikipedia for a starting point - that's a good thing to do. When researching a new subject, I will often read Wikipedia for initial information, and use the sources it cites as a starting point.
I can't stand it when teachers or professors prohibit Wikipedia as a source of accurate information. Of course it's subject to vandalism and other issues, but so is any other source. That is why all research should make use of multiple sources. If something is incorrect in an article, a good researcher will find discrepancies with other info.
Even when it's not allowed as a direct source, Wikipedia is always a great first stop to find more information about something.
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
Quoted: "students should be able to reference the online encyclopaedia in their work"
The problem there lies in referencing something which is changeable.
You reference it,
Someone edits the article,
Your reference is potentially no longer valid.
Referencing the 2006 edition of Britannica is fairly straightforward.
Referencing the 7:13 AM EST July 24th, 2007 version of a Wiki article on the other hand....
Now, his comment about how Wikipedia should be seen as a 'stepping stone' to other sources is 100% on the mark. Great for a basic understanding and the in-text links to related material make for better overall understanding.
Note that he says this about those who fully ban students from reading Wikipedia. He doesn't say that those who "downplay" the project are bad educators, he says that those who fully ban students from even reading the website are bad. And you know what? He's right, as that's censorship. Those teachers who undertake bans are bad - they do a great disservice to their students. Sure, criticise Wikipedia, but don't ban it! in life students need to be able to read a source critically and at least assess what is being written. Banning it doesn't help build critical faculties. I should also point out that as a first source for information, in general Wikipedia can be really good.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism
Yeah, that would suck if because of vandalism on Wikipedia kids wrote in papers that the Earth is the largest planet in the world, or that Mark Taddonio built the pyriamids (sic).
You just got troll'd!
I use Wikipedia all the time but always with a grain of salt. When you're in college, they should stress more at looking through primary sources of information. People think they're so smart on the internet when they read about scams, corruption and controversy and react with unimformed ideas. Even on Slashdot this is very prevalent where people just react at topic titles, not bothering to take 2 minutes to read through the information. People always complain about the media or politicians influencing the masses. But what about the masses? They only read the shit the media and politicians put out. This is the age of information and almost everything is available online we should better make use of it. There's a growing trend of people spamming Youtube and everywhere else with scientific hoaxes and conspiracy theories. The first few times, I've found them funny, because I can see through them almost immediately and some of them are pretty cleverly done. But then, I found that alot of people were taken by erroneous info. Then I felt very sad indeed.
Encyclopedias in general are not allowed to be cited in essays and research papers. They're starting points, providing cursory information on a subject and, at best, giving terms and vocabulary to begin a search into the real meat of the subject.
I don't think so. Even something as free-formed as wikipedia has caveats as well. Both have their strengths and weaknesses:
- one's free, the other isn't.
- one's updated in the blink of an eye many times to be filtered, altered, retouched, changed and quite possibly modified; the other has to wait a year to be filtered, altered, retouched, changed and quite possibly modified.
- one requires a computer, the other requires a lamp or the sun.
- one weighs many pounds and takes up space, the other can fit in one's pocket without ripping a hole in it.
- one requires an internet connection, the other requires a decent wage.
- one provides faster access to cross-information than the other.
- one provides constant access to information than the other.
- one could break your back, the other could break your carpal tunnel.
- both are enjoyed with a hot cup of coffee or tea.
- both provide the potential to provide the answers that people are looking for.
- both are used extensively whether anyone likes it or not.
- both will continue to be used extensively whether anyone likes it or not.
- anyone that would condone burning either to the ground could be considered to be a nazi.
- the definition of nazi can be found in either one.
- the world will continue to rotate on an axis whether or not either one exists or flourishes.
- one should generate a printed volume, the other should provide an online edition.
- both provide the information required that proves that competition works better than monopolies do in more ways than the other.
those people show themselves to be irrelevant to the younger audience (in perception). Also, they are not engaging the students in a meaningful way and don't overcome the myth that the "old school" methods are all outdated and worthless.
I often think wikipedia is an excellent source in itself and for deeper knowledge, a reasonable starting point. Too often, the oft-heard admonishment "dig deeper!" does not always apply to students using wikipedia as their single source for a report, but also by the teachers criticizing wikipedia - usually they scan the surface of one edit of one article to look for those errors - while wholly ignoring the revealing and complete log of wikipedias discussions and history behind that single article. Behind that one surface, you get most of the interesting parts of a subject -- the common misunderstandings, misperceptions, and myths. The genuine points of contention and controversy and the gray areas where the truth is not wholly understood or available.
Instead, teachers indulge of what they criticize in their students - intellectual lethargy. Personally, I like what this professor is doing with wikipedia:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071030-prof-replaces-term-papers-with-wikipedia-contributions.html
It's about the smartest embrace of wikipedia I have seen so far.
There have been two articles this week about Wikipedia's politics and internal ring of over-powered admins. And then Jimbo Wales tells us that students should use Wikipedia. Are they running out of people to block, is that the problem? Add some student users, then we can block them, too!
Not even Britannica is 100% correct, so I'm not sure there's any substance to the point you're trying to make.
... and then they built the supercollider.
One of the most important lessons students can learn pre-college is, in my opinion, source criticism (a term which is unfortunately used mainly in a biblical context, which is NOT my usage here).
"A critical mind is a questioning mind" is a good lesson and should be taught at every level of education.
Virtually all sources are biased, in one way or another, and students need to be aware of this and treat the information in a manner befitting the source.
Wikipedia is just another source (not a primary one, of course, with a few exceptions) and should be treated like every other secondary source - with skepticism. The fortunate thing about Wikipedia - and one that makes it a much better secondary source than most others - is that there are abundant links to other sources (although not necessarily primary sources, which would be preferable).
Additionally, Wikipedia enables one to view the version history and a discussion of the article in question. This discussion can often be used to discern if there are any particular points of contention that one should be aware of. This shouldn't replace ones critical view of "accepted facts", of course.
In practice, we are inundated with such an overwhelming amount of "news", "facts" or interpretations of same, that we cannot possibly be highly critical of every single item. Instead we rely on the reputation of the source. It is important, however, that we routinely question the reputation of the source.
For teachers to ignore Wikipedia does not seem particularly insightful and one has to wonder whether the teachers in question are the same authoritarian breed of teachers that can wreck havoc on a young mind.
Wait, what?
... the whole internet, including blogs and wikipedia, should not be used as scientific reference, as long as the authors are anonymous, and there sources are not shown. As with ANY OTHER source you might use in your paper/thesis. Why?
;))
;))
When using anything for citation, you need to make absolutely sure, that your sources are valid and not just some made-up story of creationists or school boys from Wisconsin (nothing against Wisconsin
Recently, a big scientific magazin (Nature?) officially withdrawed an article about creationism and genetic development from the 50ths (because the author wanted them to do so), because it has been misused by creationists as a "scientific proof" for their theories. (sorry, no reference
So what? Well, it shows the importance of PROPER citation references. If you want to state something, you need proof. Either, you can proof it yourself and write about your personal experience ("damn YES 110V AC *DO* hurt so DON'T touch the wires"), or you need a reference to someone who had that personal experience (or, in theoretical environments, shares your opinion).
Creationists misused this article (which contained some statements not considered valid anymore even by the author himself, time can change "reality" perception), while any other scientific source simply said (or proofed) the OPPOSITE meaning. The article itself was not the problem, but the unchecked - or in this case, I think, biased - usage of the contents.
If a wikipedia article has a good "foundation", say, external citation references that can be followed and point to qualified research documents or other sources which are again based on "proper" information, the information in the article can be, as with every other information re-used in a scientific article, *validated*, and used without any complaints.
But if the article just STATES something, without proof or reference, one should definitely check for other sources, either supporting or invalidating the article.
It's not that much different from other references you use. If you just dig up some crackpot thesis from the 30ths and use it without checking for other publications or statements about the topic, you might simply use false information, invalidating your own work.
That's about it, in fact, is has not much to do with "wikipedia can be edited by anyone" - it's just about proper scientific work.
Oh, and schools should not be babbling about whether or not "wikipedia is bad", but teach proper scientific (and social) skills.
Since when does paying for stuff guarantee it's trustworthy? Every media channel - and indeed every product - lies somewhere along a gradient of trustworthiness. Even with a reputable institution like the BBC, you have to take some account of its lefty bias. And I'm satisfied that they try quite hard to be impartial. Other publishers, drug companies, software companies, manufacturers, snake oil merchants, and so forth need to be accorded varying degrees of trust, and Wikipedia is just another point on the scale. Having used it, contributed to it, and seen how long my contributions have lasted - and on which topics - I think I have at least some idea how much trust to accord it. But that varies a lot - particularly for anything remotely contentious, I'd start by looking at the talk and history to see what editing activity has gone on over the life of the article. With that caveat, and given my minority interests, Wikipedia is probably a more reliable and trustworthy organ than, say, Fox News or the Microsoft propaganda machine.
My friend who used to contribute a lot in terms of articles and even money decided to stop because the deletionist assholes made it such a pain for him that he now despises the site. And although almost none of his contributions were deleted, he hated the way half his time was spent arguing with deletors about his work.
Even Jimbo Whales has experienced this. He started an article on Mzoli's Meats , a butcher shop and restaurant in South Africa. When it was almost speedily deleted, he told the deletors to "excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby.". In other words, get a life and stop ruining the project. Unfortunately, a bunch of editors added information to the article so it's now kept, and Jimbo doesn't have to confront either the bitterness many have felt in getting their work destroyed or remaking policy so that people like my friend would continue contributing.
These asshole admins are really making Wikipedia a crappy site, and their effect on valuable editors is worse than what any nasty vandal might do since admins are part of the power hierarchy. This is another valuable lesson in what happens when you give thoughtless small minded people a little power. They make their pronouncements and mass annihilations without any consideration on what the effect might be on a person who has spent sometimes hundreds of man hours creating, maintaining, and protecting his/her articles. They dismiss people by spouting some arbitrary interpretation of policy backed up by their cabals, while those who have better things to do like actually create content get fucked over. James Derk of The Daily Southtown wrote an article where he talks about having a similar experience.
Also, here's a good Slashdot thread illustrating the intellectual dishonesty of the deletionist admins. It is part of the Slashdot story Call For Halt To Wikipedia Webcomic Deletions which is filled with former contributors testifying to their own treatment at the hands of these assholes. It's sad how some people seem to really get off on destroying the work of others.
I think it's interesting how when I don't know about a subject, editing an article on it would be considered vandalism. But it's perfectly OK for the deletors to destroy work relating to things they often know nothing about. Sometimes they even use their very ignorance as justification.
I think it's interesting how when I don't know about a subject, editing an article on it would be considered vandalism. But it's perfectly OK for the deletors to destroy work relating to things they often know nothing about. Sometimes they even use their very ignorance as justification.
I think Wikipedia has a choice right now. Allow a lot more in than they are currently doing and piss off the deletionists, or let these deletionists have their way and piss off the content creators(And I should add, it's not only deleted articles that are targeted, but plot synopses, trivia sections, clearly permissible images, etc. have all succumbed to the slash and burn mentality of these deletionists.). So Jimbo, who would you rather keep around?
The problem isn't children citing wikipedia. The problem is lazy teachers and lazy students accepting Britannica as a reference to begin with.
An encyclopedia of any source should be the start of your research, not the end of it. It gives you the keywords and background necessary to find the real information from a primary source.
One of the things that bothered be most about this article was the phrase "young students." To me, that means kids in elementary and middle school (jr. high or what have you) but prior to reaching high school or college. I would think that during the early school years, use of Wikipedia in school research projects has to be properly introduced to a student so they understand its use over the long run. A "young student" might not understand the problems inherent with inaccuracies when doing research and the need to go to multiple sources for fact checking. I think after explaining the multiple source concept, you could introduce Wikipedia as a handy reference, but also give an example of vandalism to drive home the point of why multiple sources are necessary.
Hopefully as they learn more they will understand more nuanced aspects of inaccuracy (bias, for one) and you can apply the more formal academic rules of research papers that would view Wikipedia as not acceptable as a primary source. By that point, you are more than welcome to go look around it to find information to lead you to primary sources.
So, what's the difference? The end result is the same.
Students should be taught to be skeptical of all sources - rather than having one considered "bad" and others considered "correct". Because they can all be wrong.
... and then they built the supercollider.