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.'"
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 It's not peer reviewed.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.
its entries can too easily be cleaned, editted and whitewashed that it can't be trusted as a reliable source of information.
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.
IS it just me, or is Wikipedia best suited for pulp culture trivia...
Eg, it is a great resource if you want to learn about say, Cop-Tur of the Go-Bots (eg, if you are wondering about a random Robot Chicken episode).
As an academic resource, it is nonciteable and nontrustable, due to the volatile nature and anonymous content.
(Admittedly, I have edited Wikipedia to add corrections. But I would never cite it, but instead use it as a smarter google for some topics)
Test your net with Netalyzr
It used to be Free and open.
Now it has secret overlords and secret mailing lists.
Anyone notice lately less and less pages can be edited?
How long until the same people who puppet the US mainstream media have total control?
Without TOTAL transparency wikipedia is nothing but a half-rotten corpse.
Liberty.
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've had professors (PhD program in physics) say that they look stuff up on Wikipedia.
All the grad students look stuff up on it. There are lots of pretty scholarly physics articles on Wikipedia, and it's a good place to go when you need to look something up or get guidance on a fundamental topic.
Of course, in physics, you're supposed to think about anything you read and confirm that it makes sense before you repeat it or believe it. This really should be true in all fields, but for some reason it's beaten into physicists' heads more than some others, I think.
Wikipedia is never the final authority on anything, but it's a good starting point. If you can't remember which one of Maxwell's equations has the minus sign, it's a quicker place than most (unless you have your copy of Jackson at hand.)
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.
The BBC says that "Mr Allgar pointed out the trustworthy nature of paid-for, thoroughly-reviewed content, and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism ... but Britannica and Wikipedia should not be seen as direct competitors. Wikipedia, he said, had made the use of encyclopaedias "trendy and popular" with young people, which could only benefit Britannica's subscription-led service."
That's a new tack! This has basically been the same thing that the WMF has been saying for years now ("Wikipedia, and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, are not in competition to EBI or other companies in the business of reference works. Our goals differ significantly from other reference publishers, and only overlap in that we are all striving to create accurate and useful knowledge tools.")
Is this a turning point in relations between the two projects? Are we going to see an end to the stupidity of Robert McHenry style "toilet" comparisons?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
I find this sketch particularly apropos somehow. (Or this while it lasts.)
As someone who tutors undergrads, I concur: a lot of the texts suck. :)
And, yes, while the Feynman Lectures were intended for undergrads, a whole lot of people use them to study for PhD quals.
Quantum physics makes a great deal of sense in the only way that physical theories can: it explains our observations, to an uncanny level. *Why* it should be this way we don't really know. Quantum mechanics really isn't terribly counterintuitive; it's just *different* than the rules that govern large collections of matter. Those rules -- macroscopic mechanics, classical electromagnetism, and so on -- are just what happens when you look at the limit of quantum mechanics when a great many particles act together.
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?
In other news, Steve Ballmer thinks Students 'Should Use' Windows.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Stuff and nonsense. Tests have shown that Wikipedia is about as reliable as the Brittanica. I myself found multiple errors in the edition of EB I owned, including a spectacularly misidentified orchid genus in a photograph. Wikipedia gets it accuracy by a completely different method than a conventional enecyclopedia, but it works and apparently works about as well. This is something that the Brittanica and others simply can't get their heads around and it leads them to some very silly statements. Now please note neither an encyclopedia or Wikipedia is considered an authorative source for serious (ie, grown-up) research. They are both however good at getting you oriented and giving you places to start. My EB? Went to Goodwill long ago. I can get far more current, and more accurate, information off the web (not from Wikipedia) -- provided of course I exercise a little critical analysis.
Wikipedia Natural Science/Math articles are very useful. They really are the best place to start most of the time (so long as you don't end your "research" there).
Humanities are much trickier however. There are many more pitfalls when, say, paraphrasing Heidegger's definition of "Being." It is much easier to verify that a mathematical derivation follows the same steps as a cited source. So Wikipedia editors' reliance on primary sources can't always be taken at face value. For more obscure articles, key alternative interpretations can be missing as well. Incompleteness is Incorrectness' evil twin.
I'm not saying Wikipedia is useless outside the hard sciences. Just keep in mind that other disciplines are not always so lucky.
You're kidding... right?
Just in case you're not, you might want to read about peer review (at Wikipedia, of all places) as you don't seem to have a clue what it is...
Wikipedia can misappropriate the term "peer review" for itself all it wants, but that doesn't make it peer reviewed.
Someone started an article on me. It was wrong but stayed for over a year I think.
I found it and added some references to information that others might see past the usenet troll and flamer bias that was indirectly referenced in the article.
I then started up another article to further clarify the subject matter for which the bias in the article on myself was centered around.
It went up for deletion and realizing the negativity bias of Wikipedia I called upon the usenet trolls and flamers against me to contribute to the discussion with the bias of removing both articles.
Both articles were deleted. I'd decided I'd rather not be mentioned, nor do I need such unfairly biased publicity by being listed in Wikipedia.
I recently discovered even more unfair bias towards someone who is no longer alive to defend themselves. The article contains half truths and outright lies.
This persons certainly has more public status than I, but I will not mention who they are but rather collect up references not found on the internet that expose the unfair bias of wikipedia and share it with real people in real time, so that they can see how cleverly corrupt wikipedia really is.
Wikipedia is built upon hearsay, upon what they call as "references". That's its rules and done so in order to remove RESPONSIBILITY. Put the blame on the reference,
and we all know how much crap is on the internet. This is where the references must be found and be kinda be accessible, as wikipedia does not verify all references regularly and many become broken.
They pick and chose which things they reference off the internet and tend to bias on the negative by the weakness of facts the nature of the machine the internet is and likewise wikipedia is.
So they find the opinions of others written somewhere on the internet and they have their references. Hearsay is not allowed in court, facts are.
Wikipedia is not based on facts, its based on hearsay and THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PROPER RESOURCES TO DO UNBIASED RESEARCH and they never will.
I expect Wikipedia to be very capable of writing the next bible.
Wikipedia needs a "in your face" disclaimer on every article and every page.
... 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?
there are plenty of textbooks out there that only exist because the prof wants to be able to make you buy them to supplment their income. They might as well be blank pages and as far as the content is considered you would be no worse off if they were. It would be a good rule if professors were not able to make you buy their own textbook for a course.
MP3 Search Engine
It's really not that hard to spot vandalism on Wikipedia. When you look up a public figure and it says he's had sex with goats, it's a pretty good bet that there's been some vandalism.
Unless he's a Republican politician from the Christian Right, in which case all bets are off.
[See, I was just kidding there. It's a Saturday, after all, and I'm drinkin' early.]
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
They ask Bill Joy and Richard Stallman which text editor is better, emacs or vi.
I'd still wager that the quality of the writing is still better than the average disjointed Wikipedia article, regardless of which contains more raw information.
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.
I hear this line frequently, and I never really understood it. Nobody ever got rich writing textbooks. I don't think anyone ever bought dinner at a nice restaurant by writing textbooks.
If your prof has you buying his book, it's because he thinks it's the best book for the course. He might or might not be right about that, but he's not listing his book because his seven-cents-a-copy royalties are tipping the balance (and especially since the first few hundred dollars of those royalties -- if the book actually makes that much -- go to paying indexing costs, etc.)
You never know who will get one.
Even worse, the article on Gibb's Phenomenon states: The overshoot is a consequence of trying to approximate a discontinuous function with a partial (i.e. finite) sum of continuous functions. A finite sum of continuous functions is, by definition, continuous, and therefore cannot approximate the discontinuity (and the area "near" it) to within any arbitrarily chosen accuracy. An infinite sum of continuous functions can be discontinuous, and hence, does not exhibit the Gibbs phenomenon. Which is just wrong. A square wave (the example on the page) exhibits Gibb's Phenomenon even if you take the infinite sum. A true square wave simply cannot be represented as a Fourier series at all points.
I'll probably fix that one some day. Not in the mood to get into an edit war right now (apparently someone before me tried).
(Not saying any other place is better - I've found an occasional grave "error" in Mathworld as well).
Beetle B.
Gibbs' phenomenon is an interesting case. In the limit as the number of terms in the Fourier series goes to infinity, the *region* in which Gibbs' phenomenon takes place gets arbitrarily small, but the actual *amount* of the overshoot at the edge doesn't. So in the actual infinite limit, you've got a finite-sized error at the discontinuity happening over an infinitesimal range. Whether this "counts" as an error (since the integrated error over all points is zero; it's not like a Dirac delta) depends on your discipline, I think.
In physics (and I imagine engineering, etc.) we tend to ignore stuff like this, since "true square waves" don't really exist.
Mathematicians are all from another planet anyway, so who knows how they describe this.
You're right, of course. But...
Until the average undergraduate is capable of making that distinction
If you're not capable of making that decision, you shouldn't be an undergraduate.
Shouldn't we demand some basic critical thinking skills from our undergrads at all?
Why wikipedia is an excellent resource is the requirement for articles to have some type of references listed for accuracy and peer review. I've seen more references to other books and articles on Wikipedia than I have in printed or online encyclopedias (such as World Book, Britannica, etc). The immense amount of references alone gives students a great place to start their research.
My problem with using Wikipedia in a grade-to-middle school setting is that there are plenty of article for which there is gratuitously inappropriate content for the article. I was trying to help my 6th grader learn about a topic, and went to an article about Stereoscopy, and one of the example images was a turn-of-the-last-century stereoscopic picture of a nude woman. Now while I'm not a prude, and have no problem with him seeing it (it was very tame,) it means that he would be in deep trouble if he opened that article at school. There were plenty of other examples that didn't require nudity.
I can fully understand the use of "questionable" content in articles ABOUT the "questionable" thing. (For example, the use of the f-word in articles about rappers as direct quotations from the rapper, or the use of a photo of a topless woman in the article on "breasts"; although there do seem to be so many in that article as to be gratuitous.) But in an article on stereoscopy? The picture belonged in an article on "turn of the 19-20-th century erotica", and if it was a prevalent use of stereoscopy, then maybe a MENTION in the stereoscopy article, but not an example. For example, the article on the VHS/Beta video format war mentions porn, but it doesn't have any screenshots of said porn.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
to every rule there are probably exceptions. I'm more thinking of the 'university vanity press' that produces relatively small runs of very pricey text books that get to be 'proscribed reading' for the students. Whether it's for ego or for profit is debatable, but it's a pretty bad practice in either case.
MP3 Search Engine
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.