Wikipedia kid

[johnastovall]

A new term that has serious implications for the future of higher education.

Wikipedia kid
n. A student who has poor research skills and lacks the ability to think critically.

[L Stegall]

And how is this different than the kid who used the paper Encyclopedia for their reports 20 years ago?

[donlfaulkner]

Originally Posted by L Stegall

And how is this different than the kid who used the paper Encyclopedia for their reports 20 years ago?

Um...As I remember it was a little difficult to "cut and paste" from a paper encyclopedia. The phsycial act of writing one's paper/notes by hand reinforced the learning process. "Cut and paste" does not.

[texkam]

"cut and paste" from a paper encyclopedia.

Mindless copying. But at least the child is learning penmanship skills I guess.

[donlfaulkner]

The way I see it the info goes from the page through the eyes in to the brain, through the hand to the paper. Some of the info will stick. Not as much with "cut and paste".

[kenw]

Originally Posted by L Stegall

And how is this different than the kid who used the paper Encyclopedia for their reports 20 years ago?

At least the stuff copied from an encyclopedia had some resemblance to well researched and accurate data. Wiki offers none of that; any schmuk can edit wiki to their bigoted little hearts' content.

Wiki was good idea that has failed for the same reason that was supposed to make it successful: too many cooks.

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by kenw

At least the stuff copied from an encyclopedia had some resemblance to well researched and accurate data. Wiki offers none of that; any schmuk can edit wiki to their bigoted little hearts' content.

Wiki was good idea that has failed for the same reason that was supposed to make it successful: too many cooks.

Wikipedia is a great place to begin one's research. I think of it as a collection of class notes on a subject.

Although anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is not so easy to keep nonsense on a page for very long. Many people watch the pages and remove many of the errors.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

Although anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is not so easy to keep nonsense on a page for very long. Many people watch the pages and remove many of the errors.

it depends on your definition of "nonsense"; look up Halliburton, global warming or Al Gore sometime. There are people that camp on these pages to make sure that their particular slant (putting it mildly) is maintained, regardless of facts.

[Brains]

Wikipedia is pretty good for looking up indisputable facts. Things left to interpretation, will be just that. Take it as it is.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by Brains

Wikipedia is pretty good for looking up indisputable facts. Things left to interpretation, will be just that. Take it as it is.

therein lies the problem: how does a non-expert sift fact from opinion? Far too many important and topical articles have become merely a sandbox to crap in, regardless of of the direction you might lean.

Wiki's best resourse is the resources linked in each article, much moreso thant the actual wiki article itself. They are usually a bit more reliable, or at least their slant is obvious.

[texkam]

From an article by Marc Prensky:

"As soon as any new technology comes down the pike, be it TV, phones, cell phones, cameras, video cams, or the Wikipedia, the good old American school tradition is always ready to fear and ban it!"

"What should we teach our kids about Wikipedia? First, that it’s a source. Second, that it’s never the only source. And third, that merely searching, finding and citing the Wikipedia—or even the Brittanica—does not constitute “research.”

"As educators our duty is to teach our students to understand both the power and the limitations of all the new technological tools that are, and will increasingly be, at our kids’ disposal."

[janikphoto]

I think Wikipedia is a great place to start for info. However, I never END my search there.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by kenw

At least the stuff copied from an encyclopedia had some resemblance to well researched and accurate data. Wiki offers none of that; any schmuk can edit wiki to their bigoted little hearts' content.

Wiki was good idea that has failed for the same reason that was supposed to make it successful: too many cooks.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Cajungaltx]

True story...

When the horse died - Barbaro - He shattered his front leg - they tried all kinds of stuff to fix it... they had things shown of him being held up, so he didn't put his weight on it...

This was NOT that long ago btw - a year or so?

I was looking up info, and they had this story in wikkipedia - about how he had died, and they had lowered him into some ocean somewhere and he was eaten by sharks.

I'm not an idiot... but I am at times highly gullible... and I suppose it was better than being buried... at least he was part of the food chain, right?

It wasn't true obviously... but it was on there for a while... and I read it, and forwarded it for some discussion... it was embarrasing to realize afterward that i was mislead.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Brains

Wikipedia is pretty good for looking up indisputable facts...

Uh-huh.