Slashdot Mirror
Some Colleges Cautiously Embrace Wikipedia (chronicle.com)
Megan Zahneis, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education: Academics have traditionally distrusted Wikipedia, citing the inaccuracies that arise from its communally edited design and lamenting students' tendency to sometimes plagiarize assignments from it. Now, LiAnna Davis, director of programs for Wikipedia's higher-education-focused nonprofit arm Wiki Education, said, higher education and Wikipedia don't seem like such strange bedfellows. At conferences these days, "everyone's like, 'Oh, Wikipedia, of course you guys are here.'"
"I think it's a recognition that Wikipedia is embedded within the fabric of learning now," she said. One initiative Davis oversees at Wiki Education aims to forge stronger bonds between Wikipedia and higher education. The Visiting Scholars program, which began in 2015, pairs academics at colleges with experienced Wikipedia editors. Institutions provide the editors with access to academic journals, research databases, and digital collections, which the editors use to write and expand Wikipedia articles on topics of mutual interest. A dozen institutions, including Rutgers University, Brown University, and the University of Pittsburgh, are participating.
"I think it's a recognition that Wikipedia is embedded within the fabric of learning now," she said. One initiative Davis oversees at Wiki Education aims to forge stronger bonds between Wikipedia and higher education. The Visiting Scholars program, which began in 2015, pairs academics at colleges with experienced Wikipedia editors. Institutions provide the editors with access to academic journals, research databases, and digital collections, which the editors use to write and expand Wikipedia articles on topics of mutual interest. A dozen institutions, including Rutgers University, Brown University, and the University of Pittsburgh, are participating.
Even in the old days, you wouldn't use an Encyclopedia to get a general overview of a topic that you were unfamiliar with. For a topic you cared about, you would look for something more in-depth.
Wikipedia is better than the old days because of the citations, and because of its greater breadth. However, it's not an authority on anything, and is often wrong. If it's a topic you care about, you need to look at the sources and citations. You can't use it for anything more than an entry-point to knowledge.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Citation neededÂ
So, the shit ones?
They are not colleagues then.
They are the guys in Idiocracy, measuring chimpanzee boner time, but with cripling Asergers, suffocating in their own filter bubble.
Anyone plagiatizing any material, especially an encyclopedia, in a university setting does not belong there.
Back in grad school (mid-aughts), I used to TA at one of the aforementioned universities (Brown), and I was shocked at the number of students blatantly plagiarizing material. I'd say less than 20% were able to write original research free of plagiarism. This was shocking to me, having graduated from another Ivy League university less than 10 years prior, but just before digital resources like Wikipedia had become widely available. I literally didn't know anyone who was obviously cheating.
Of course my technologically illiterate profs in grad school would not let me fail anyone unless I could locate and produce the original source. In the case of Wikipedia, this was easy, but with others, not so much with detection tools available at the time. IMO, blatantly obvious changes in tone, writing style, and depth of analysis from week to week should have been enough, but apparently not.
Finally, no more tedious facts, experiments and reading hundreds of potentially cite-worthy papers. Just write a Wikipedia article that says what you need to back you up. Maybe collaborate with fellow students for some on the spot citogenesis to make up "facts".
That is the biggest "crossed wires" insanity of Wikipedia: Citations are never checked but blindly believed as making somthing autoritative, while original research is literally *forbidden*.
WHILE having an article on "argument from autority" being a logical fallacy.
The cognitive dissonance there is hopeless. The entire culture is as cluelessly pseudoscientific as an esoteric new age convention hosted by a church.
And then on top, "anyone can edit" has become a blatant lie. Sure, you can edit. And it's gonna be reverted to the POV of an admin in mere minutes! If not outright blocked for a "review" where "delete" is he only option ever used. Admins that are the unemployed mentally unstable disgruntled type in a dirty wifebeater and no underwear. Because those who can... do. Those who can't do, ... teach. Ant those who can't teach, ... become admins for Wikipedia.
But only if they can both echo what they memorized about the scientific model, and entirely miss its point and not understand it, at the same time.
The whole point of higher education is that you are getting educated from a reliable source, and that the tuition you pay justifies it. If colleges are just going to tell you to read Wikipedia for four years then why bother going?
I was always quite fond of Wikipedia to simplify my researching and outlining needs. No need to copy it verbatim when you have direct primary citations and an outline ready to go. That's like 50% of the BS that goes into writing that busy work.
Concerned somene will motice? Swap a section or two around. The burden of proof is on the over worked and under paid professor.
Made getting through the stupid stuff that much better. I loved those fools who said, "But you'll never learn it and then be screwed when you're at your job and can't do it". Yeah joke's on you because most of the crap classes I had to write research papers in have zero bearing on what I'm doing today.
The whole point of higher education is that you are getting educated from a reliable source, and that the tuition you pay justifies it. If colleges are just going to tell you to read Wikipedia for four years then why bother going?
Most college courses teach from textbooks, too!
Why go to college if you could just buy and read the textbooks?
College is such a ripoff...
They both support the same "truthiness" so why not just merge!? RPI the West.
"Everyone needs a college education."
This flagrant lie was perpetuated on generations of students, most of whom never should have gone to college and wound up with enormous debt they can't pay. The financing was made possible by government loans. Now there's tens of millions of Americans with degrees and no actual marketable skills.
Eventually, the student loan bubble will burst. Everything but the most elite and/or endowed universities will go bankrupt.
Universities still actually pay their workers. Jimmy might not understand the risk of his free laborers getting big ideas.
If these Universities weren't a a bunch of idiots they would create their OWN _shared_ version of Wikipedia.
Imagine this:
* Having EVERY article be peer reviewed by actual professors!
And if they were smart they would band together and create a UNIFIED open source Textbook+. I say Textbook+ because it could be: Encyclopedia + Textbook + Reference + Examples + Pseudocode + Implementation.
Maybe next century?
...proudly vandalised Wikipedia in all the subjects he taught to catch any students using Wikipedia. If someone was caught; instant flunk out of his class.
why pay $250+ for a book that professor wrote and gets changed each year?
>Academics have traditionally distrusted Wikipedia
Nope. Then, I did not read all the garbage that follows.
I vaguely recall noting 50 years ago that Encyclopedia Britannica was written by ~100 august scholars with impeccable credentials. So I assumed that these grey haired fossils essentially assigned their grad students to do whatever actual work or research was required. This did not inspire confidence. [yes, you may assume that now I am a grey haired fossil]
This wiki thing is written by thousands of all ages and widely varying credentials. That is wonderful. Many are experts on only one topic and very current. Many have access to unique sources of information. Many are passionate about a topic or two. Yes, it's undoubtedly true that some will distort facts to meet their obsessions. I tend to believe that most are altruistic and bend over backward to uncover unbiased truth.
I have never doubted the overall excellence of Wikipedia. Of course, an article about a controversial person, such as the current US president, may well be spiked with distortions. Such articles draw very emotional editors. We all know that and are cautious in our acceptance. But reading about most subjects should be reasonably worthwhile.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Too many people editing Wikipedia have personal agendas that they are pushing. This makes some articles a bit misleading, even if they are well cited.