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
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...
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?
why pay $250+ for a book that professor wrote and gets changed each year?
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.