Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wikipedia

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:21:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think so, for the most part, since most claims on Wikipedia need to be sourced in order to remain there. Plus, it has a staff which removes things that are reported false, etc.
President of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:29:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ya, I tried putting stuff on Wikipedia a while back and it's really hard, they're all up in your face and stuff.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tmoney225
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:31:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wikipedia (when cited) is nearly always a reliable source.

Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:33:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 3:31:18 PM, tmoney225 wrote:
Wikipedia (when cited) is nearly always a reliable source.

Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

Like teachers.
tmoney225
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:39:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 3:33:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/28/2010 3:31:18 PM, tmoney225 wrote:
Wikipedia (when cited) is nearly always a reliable source.

Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

Like teachers.

quoted for truth
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:41:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It isn't a reliable source just by virtue of the fact that you can screw around with all bits of information on it for some time until its discovered.

That's why, and I repeat this often, you need to check the citations on Wikipedia to see if they're credible. Then use those citations as your source. It bypasses the reputation of Wiki, but still makes it a useful tool.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:43:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 3:41:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
It isn't a reliable source just by virtue of the fact that you can screw around with all bits of information on it for some time until its discovered.

That's why, and I repeat this often, you need to check the citations on Wikipedia to see if they're credible. Then use those citations as your source. It bypasses the reputation of Wiki, but still makes it a useful tool.

But isn't it immediately checked each time a change is made?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:44:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 3:43:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
But isn't it immediately checked each time a change is made?

Do you know how many articles are on Wikipedia?

They are checked, and they're checked often, but not all articles are checked often enough. I remember seeing an addition to an article on some Finnish thing that was there for two weeks according to the history.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 3:47:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 3:43:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/28/2010 3:41:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
It isn't a reliable source just by virtue of the fact that you can screw around with all bits of information on it for some time until its discovered.

That's why, and I repeat this often, you need to check the citations on Wikipedia to see if they're credible. Then use those citations as your source. It bypasses the reputation of Wiki, but still makes it a useful tool.

But isn't it immediately checked each time a change is made?

They have auto bots for major changes with no <refs> and things. They also have different Mods online, that follow up on all changes. If you've ever been a wiki admin/mod you'd see all unchecked updates have a red exclamation mark.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 4:50:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I trust Wiki about as much as I trust a government site: I'll take them a the gospel until I can see how interests migh be involved one way or another. Same goes for all those other sites that put on the visage that they're big, conventional, important, and unbiased.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 3:31:18 PM, tmoney225 wrote:
Wikipedia (when cited) is nearly always a reliable source.

Not really. Like Volkov said, you've got to check the sources. They aren't always reliable, and not to mention, there are a lot of politics and compromises that go into editing Wikipedia.

Check the Talk Pages. For subject-specific articles (like the band Simple Plan), there are usually one or two users that hover over the article and control it like a hawk. On lesser known articles, mistakes can stay put for weeks or months.

But on general and widely accessed articles (such as the article on evolution), it's usually all good.

Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 5:27:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

Most of your teachers aren't out to get you, just so you know.

And I'm not defending the textbook industry, but textbooks are at least first written by professionals. My Environmental Science textbook, for example, cites primary sources several times a page. My AP Language textbook is a compilation of important works of literature, almost exactly as they are meant to be shows. My US History textbook, though really watered down, does pretty much tell the truth, and is written by professionals. And the hard mathematics and sciences (calculus and chemistry, for example) are what they are.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is written by amateurs for ammeters.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 5:46:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 5:27:01 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

Most of your teachers aren't out to get you, just so you know.
You don't have to realize you're killing someone to have it be factually correct that you are indeed killing someone.

And I'm not defending the textbook industry, but
Don't give me that crap, of course you are.
textbooks are at least first written by professionals. My Environmental Science textbook, for example, cites primary sources several times a page. My AP Language textbook is a compilation of important works of literature, almost exactly as they are meant to be shows. My US History textbook, though really watered down, does pretty much tell the truth, and is written by professionals. And the hard mathematics and sciences (calculus and chemistry, for example) are what they are.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is written by amateurs for ammeters.
Totally doesn't refute that, based on your logic, textbooks encourage intellectual laziness. What is this called, red herring? Not that I disagree with the argument. It's just not what I was talking about.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 6:08:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 5:46:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:27:01 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

Most of your teachers aren't out to get you, just so you know.
You don't have to realize you're killing someone to have it be factually correct that you are indeed killing someone.

W/e. Btw, get off this site. You're killing yourself. There is always a better education out there. Go to the library. Spend the time you spend on here to read more.

textbooks are at least first written by professionals. My Environmental Science textbook, for example, cites primary sources several times a page. My AP Language textbook is a compilation of important works of literature, almost exactly as they are meant to be shows. My US History textbook, though really watered down, does pretty much tell the truth, and is written by professionals. And the hard mathematics and sciences (calculus and chemistry, for example) are what they are.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is written by amateurs for ammeters.
Totally doesn't refute that, based on your logic, textbooks encourage intellectual laziness.

When students look at Wikipedia, they're usually doing outside research for, like, projects and stuff. The point is to go above and beyond--more than the textbooks.

Of course textbooks aren't the maximum intellectual experience, but they aren't intended to be. Research projects, however, are, and that's why teachers don't like Wikipedia...get it?

Not that I disagree with the argument.

Don't give me that crap, of course you are.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 6:11:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd say no.

Yes.. but no.

Just use it to get to the ACTUAL source with the actual credibility.

Claims on wikipedia are only credible through their sources... so use the sources.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 6:21:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 6:08:49 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:46:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:27:01 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

Most of your teachers aren't out to get you, just so you know.
You don't have to realize you're killing someone to have it be factually correct that you are indeed killing someone.

W/e. Btw, get off this site.
F*ck you.
You're killing yourself. There is always a better education out there. Go to the library. Spend the time you spend on here to read more.
Well, now we know PBJ's opinion on this stuff is void. If he actually believed his crap, he wouldn't be here saying it.

textbooks are at least first written by professionals. My Environmental Science textbook, for example, cites primary sources several times a page. My AP Language textbook is a compilation of important works of literature, almost exactly as they are meant to be shows. My US History textbook, though really watered down, does pretty much tell the truth, and is written by professionals. And the hard mathematics and sciences (calculus and chemistry, for example) are what they are.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is written by amateurs for ammeters.
Totally doesn't refute that, based on your logic, textbooks encourage intellectual laziness.

When students look at Wikipedia, they're usually doing outside research for, like, projects and stuff. The point is to go above and beyond--more than the textbooks.

Of course textbooks aren't the maximum intellectual experience, but they aren't intended to be. Research projects, however, are, and that's why teachers don't like Wikipedia...get it?
Not one bit. Why isn't every day in the classroom intended to maximize intellectual experience?

Not that I disagree with the argument.

Don't give me that crap, of course you are.

lol, okay PBJ. I don't have anything against the "written by better educated people" thing, but if you want to think I'm against it, fine by me. It's still off topic :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 6:32:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 6:21:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 6:08:49 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:46:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:27:01 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

Most of your teachers aren't out to get you, just so you know.
You don't have to realize you're killing someone to have it be factually correct that you are indeed killing someone.

W/e. Btw, get off this site.
F*ck you.

No need to curse. Certainly not this frequently, anyway.

You're killing yourself. There is always a better education out there. Go to the library. Spend the time you spend on here to read more.
Well, now we know PBJ's opinion on this stuff is void. If he actually believed his crap, he wouldn't be here saying it.

Irony.

I was assuming your position and showing how under your rules you should get off the site. You said you want to always maximize your educational experience. This site is a detriment to that. I don't need to maximize my educational experience all the time.

textbooks are at least first written by professionals. My Environmental Science textbook, for example, cites primary sources several times a page. My AP Language textbook is a compilation of important works of literature, almost exactly as they are meant to be shows. My US History textbook, though really watered down, does pretty much tell the truth, and is written by professionals. And the hard mathematics and sciences (calculus and chemistry, for example) are what they are.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is written by amateurs for ammeters.
Totally doesn't refute that, based on your logic, textbooks encourage intellectual laziness.

When students look at Wikipedia, they're usually doing outside research for, like, projects and stuff. The point is to go above and beyond--more than the textbooks.

Of course textbooks aren't the maximum intellectual experience, but they aren't intended to be. Research projects, however, are, and that's why teachers don't like Wikipedia...get it?
Not one bit. Why isn't every day in the classroom intended to maximize intellectual experience?

Have you ever been to Korea? Do you want that sort of educational experience?

Look, I'm not defending our education system as perfect. But your notion of maximizing intellectual experience is silly, dude.

Not that I disagree with the argument.

Don't give me that crap, of course you are.

lol, okay PBJ. I don't have anything against the "written by better educated people" thing, but if you want to think I'm against it, fine by me. It's still off topic :D

You're being inconsistent, is what you are.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 6:37:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 6:32:00 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 6:21:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 6:08:49 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:46:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:27:01 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

Most of your teachers aren't out to get you, just so you know.
You don't have to realize you're killing someone to have it be factually correct that you are indeed killing someone.

W/e. Btw, get off this site.
F*ck you.

No need to curse. Certainly not this frequently, anyway.
Most things people do are from wants.

You're killing yourself. There is always a better education out there. Go to the library. Spend the time you spend on here to read more.
Well, now we know PBJ's opinion on this stuff is void. If he actually believed his crap, he wouldn't be here saying it.

Irony.

I was assuming your position and showing how under your rules you should get off the site. You said you want to always maximize your educational experience. This site is a detriment to that. I don't need to maximize my educational experience all the time.
Irony indeed. Though lampshaded, cause I really don't care about maximizing my educational experience 100% of the time. Just at school. If I'm going to be forced to be there, I think I should be served some pretty good sh!t.

textbooks are at least first written by professionals. My Environmental Science textbook, for example, cites primary sources several times a page. My AP Language textbook is a compilation of important works of literature, almost exactly as they are meant to be shows. My US History textbook, though really watered down, does pretty much tell the truth, and is written by professionals. And the hard mathematics and sciences (calculus and chemistry, for example) are what they are.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is written by amateurs for ammeters.
Totally doesn't refute that, based on your logic, textbooks encourage intellectual laziness.

When students look at Wikipedia, they're usually doing outside research for, like, projects and stuff. The point is to go above and beyond--more than the textbooks.

Of course textbooks aren't the maximum intellectual experience, but they aren't intended to be. Research projects, however, are, and that's why teachers don't like Wikipedia...get it?
Not one bit. Why isn't every day in the classroom intended to maximize intellectual experience?

Have you ever been to Korea? Do you want that sort of educational experience?
I don't understand the reference. Do they maximize intellectual experience?

Look, I'm not defending our education system as perfect. But your notion of maximizing intellectual experience is silly, dude.
I'm sorry, what was my notion of maximizing intellectual experience?

Not that I disagree with the argument.

Don't give me that crap, of course you are.

lol, okay PBJ. I don't have anything against the "written by better educated people" thing, but if you want to think I'm against it, fine by me. It's still off topic :D

You're being inconsistent, is what you are.

Inconsistent about what again?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 9:02:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

nope. research projects are different from in class activities. learning from textbooks isn't intellectual laziness if you have a lot of information to take in in a limited amount of time, its necessary. a research project is meant specifically to be different, for the kid to seek and compile their own information rather than having it fed to them by a textbook because they rarely have the chance to practice that skill in school.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 9:40:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
As a teacher, I can tell you that I won't allow students to straight up cite Wiki. But, it has nothing to do with intellectual laziness as defined in this thread. The fact that, as Volkov pointed out, Wiki articles can reflect really inaccurate information for a given amount of time (like, it only takes a few minutes for a kid to get on here and pull nonsense) makes it highly suspect.

I tell my students that they can/should START at Wiki, but not end there. They need to visit the source links, if they can, and evaluate THOSE sources, as well. Wiki should be treated like any other non-peer reviewed internet posting. The internet itself is a volatile source of information, and students should be using critical assessment skills when looking at any website. An "edu" at the end, for instance, does not automatically make a website credible.

My preference is to steer them toward things like scholarly journals, more closely edited encyclopedias, and other informational texts available in research libraries on university campuses, etc.

I admit that Wiki tends to be a good place to get an overview of a given topic, but it is never where research should stop.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 3:46:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have teachers that are all for it. One wants our school to start one and another uses it to look up things she doesn't know. The latter taught with it yesterday.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 4:32:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 9:02:55 PM, belle wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:14:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/28/2010 5:05:33 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Idiotic teachers who are afraid of technology say it isn't, but that's only because they're idiotic. Truth is that its probably more reliable than a lot of other "reliable" sources.

More than anything, I think teachers are against it because it encourages intellectual laziness. It's much better if you're looking for anything good to look at primary and secondary sources. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is a composite of sources of sources of sources of sources. Not very good.

Bull sh!t. Using your logic, if teachers actually gave a crap about screwing over intellectual laziness, they would stop using textbooks. Because those are "composite(s) of sources of sources of sources of sources" and are therefore "Not very good".

nope. research projects are different from in class activities. learning from textbooks isn't intellectual laziness if you have a lot of information to take in in a limited amount of time, its necessary.
So why is it necessary to take in all that information again?
a research project is meant specifically to be different, for the kid to seek and compile their own information rather than having it fed to them by a textbook because they rarely have the chance to practice that skill in school.
Really to me, it seems like the teachers are working cross purposes. Feeding children information most of the time, and then every blue moon making them go out and look for it themselves.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 2:40:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For exact statistics, for example, Wikipedia is not the best source. On one article you can read that the population of a country is say, 32 million, and on another article you can read that the population of the same country is 30 million. Not that it is too important, but numbers should be as correct as possible.

As for reading an article for some quick facts or basic knowledge on a topic, I find Wikipedia reliable.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 8:27:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 4:32:23 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
So why is it necessary to take in all that information again?

because we know a *lot*, and people who are deficient in knowledge are at a disadvantage getting jobs. esp in places like the US where all the lower level jobs that can be outsourced have been outsourced :P

Really to me, it seems like the teachers are working cross purposes. Feeding children information most of the time, and then every blue moon making them go out and look for it themselves.

hardly! being able to do research is a valuable skill, no? but imagine if you had to independently research everything you learned in school...your research skills would probably increase dramatically, but you would end up with a lot less actual knowledge.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 8:37:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 8:27:47 AM, belle wrote:
At 4/29/2010 4:32:23 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
So why is it necessary to take in all that information again?

because we know a *lot*, and people who are deficient in knowledge are at a disadvantage getting jobs. esp in places like the US where all the lower level jobs that can be outsourced have been outsourced :P
I'm pretty sure the outsourcing isn't happening because people in India know which generals participated in Operation Market Garden, which side won, and why they won, and people in America don't.

Really to me, it seems like the teachers are working cross purposes. Feeding children information most of the time, and then every blue moon making them go out and look for it themselves.

hardly! being able to do research is a valuable skill, no? but imagine if you had to independently research everything you learned in school...your research skills would probably increase dramatically, but you would end up with a lot less actual knowledge.
That's not a problem to human resources guys and employers, from what I've heard. They don't really mind too much what you know, they mind what you can learn and how fast you can learn it. Of course that doesn't hold true for some jobs, but those are the same jobs that most people won't be doing anyways, the same classes in school most people wouldn't need in their future anyways. But then this gets us back to the question of what is the purpose of public education in the first place, and a whole lot of other issues, and we'd have to clear those up before we could get anywhere further with this.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 8:46:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 8:37:55 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I'm pretty sure the outsourcing isn't happening because people in India know which generals participated in Operation Market Garden, which side won, and why they won, and people in America don't.

missing the point, which was that here in the US the economy is being more and more knowledge based. what i said was that jobs not requiring knowledge past a basic level were being outsourced. so apparantly you agree with me :P

That's not a problem to human resources guys and employers, from what I've heard. They don't really mind too much what you know, they mind what you can learn and how fast you can learn it. Of course that doesn't hold true for some jobs, but those are the same jobs that most people won't be doing anyways, the same classes in school most people wouldn't need in their future anyways. But then this gets us back to the question of what is the purpose of public education in the first place, and a whole lot of other issues, and we'd have to clear those up before we could get anywhere further with this.

is everything they teach you in school strictly necessary? no... but certainly basic reading and writing skills, math, science... they are necessary to function in most jobs, certainly in life. if people understood science better we wouldn't have to deal with monstrosities like this vaccine-autism crap or homeopathic medicine. they would save themselves some money too :P

anyways i am not here to argue that public schools are always right or that the system can't be improved. just that its not inconsistent to call something "intellectual laziness" in one situation and necessary in another.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 8:54:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 8:46:13 AM, belle wrote:
At 4/30/2010 8:37:55 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I'm pretty sure the outsourcing isn't happening because people in India know which generals participated in Operation Market Garden, which side won, and why they won, and people in America don't.

missing the point, which was that here in the US the economy is being more and more knowledge based. what i said was that jobs not requiring knowledge past a basic level were being outsourced. so apparantly you agree with me :P
I don't believe in "Silence is Consent". It's why I quit formal debate, and why I don't really debate on this site anymore except on the forums. No, I don't f*cking agree with you. What happened was a misinterpretation.

That's not a problem to human resources guys and employers, from what I've heard. They don't really mind too much what you know, they mind what you can learn and how fast you can learn it. Of course that doesn't hold true for some jobs, but those are the same jobs that most people won't be doing anyways, the same classes in school most people wouldn't need in their future anyways. But then this gets us back to the question of what is the purpose of public education in the first place, and a whole lot of other issues, and we'd have to clear those up before we could get anywhere further with this.

is everything they teach you in school strictly necessary? no... but certainly basic reading and writing skills, math, science... they are necessary to function in most jobs, certainly in life.
.............yeah if i said anything about this you'd just respond with what you said next. i don't agree with the above, but there's too much material to cover before i can get to the point of why i disagree.

anyways i am not here to argue that public schools are always right or that the system can't be improved. just that its not inconsistent to call something "intellectual laziness" in one situation and necessary in another.
No, it is. Intellectual laziness is intellectual laziness anytime and every time. If you want to call laziness necessary, that's cool. But don't think it isn't adding onto the laziness, cause it is. It is the "unseen" consequence of that course of action.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?