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.
Concerned somene will motice? Swap a section or two around.
Yes that doesn't work. It's usually blindingly obvious when the student has copied a source (paragraph swapping not withstanding) because 99 times out of 100 the writing is far more coherent.
You think you're pulling a fast one, you're not. You probably got away with it because it's extra paperwork for the professor and hey it's your education.
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.
Wait so the joke's on them because you spent your money and got a narrower education than you could have done. Har har har! So funny! lol.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I have always considered Wikipedia to be an overview and an index. It does rapidly collect some of the best articles on a given subject. Especially if you look in the history for citations that have been removed!
Oh, if I had a nickel for every Wikipedia reference that turned out to be a link to a page that no longer exists. It almost makes you wonder: Did that page ever exist? If it doesn't exist any more, why wouldn't someone editing pages clean it up? I can see why academics would balk at someone using Wikipedia as a source.
There you go... spot on.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
If colleges are just going to tell you to read Wikipedia for four years then why bother going?
The certificate that gets you past the auto-rejection algorithm at a job interview.
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...