Some Colleges Cautiously Embrace Wikipedia (chronicle.com) 65
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.
Fine, but (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Citations do not make something true. (Score:1, Insightful)
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
Re:Fine, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fine, but (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, if I had a nickel for every Wikipedia reference that turned out to be a link to a page that no longer exists.
You know what's even better than that? Finding out that Wikipedia has cited one of your web pages (on my personal vanity site, no less...) in an article which you cited on that very same page. One (me, in fact) wonders how many circular citations like this you can find on Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the difference between Wikipedia and a paper Encyclopedia. Wikipedia can be in-depth about more topic than a paper book can even mention. While the Encyclopædia Britannica is 32 volumes long, Wikipedia put in a similar format would be about 3000 volumes long. Making it bigger than most libraries.
And while a paper Encyclopedia cannot ever be updated or corrected, and anything it says just has to be taken as true because even if it contains a citation, good luck getting your hands on every single
Re:Fine, but (Score:5, Insightful)
By the 8th grade in public schools, teachers stop accepting Encyclopedias as a source. I don't see why we should accept Wikipedia as a source either.
This isn't to say that even in College or even Post-Grad work that Encyclopedias or now Wikipedia isn't useful for research, but it is used as a start of knowledge. Just because if you are looking at something new, you may not even know what questions to ask and what material to read up on, for you to actually get information needed to actually start the real research.
Re: (Score:2)
"For a topic you cared about, you would look for something more in-depth."
It sure beats a creationist schoolbook from Kansas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fine, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fine, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fine, but (Score:2)
Some colleges embrace Wikipedia (Score:3, Funny)
Citation neededÂ
Why pay for a Wiki education? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also textbooks? (Score:3)
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...
Re:Why pay for a Wiki education? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
why pay $250+ for a book that professor wrote (Score:2)
why pay $250+ for a book that professor wrote and gets changed each year?
Re: (Score:2)
and when it time for the professor to rip a page out of book to stop the used market what are you going to do fail the class?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a teacher, when I link to Wikipedia in any of my course pages, it's because I have personally verified that what is on that particular Wikipedia page is true. That is the general rule of thumb for my classes (and I assume for other teachers who haven't checked out): Feel free to use online resources but beware of their accuracy; trust the online resources I link you out to as your teacher.
Re: (Score:3)
Education is moving away from the 19th century module of facts and figures, and into the 21st century of analysis. It's moving very slowly, but it's become obvious it's the way to go.
Facts and figures were appropriate in the 19th century because it was hard to distribute, search an
The"Wikipedia" Rewrite (Score:3)
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.
Re:The"Wikipedia" Rewrite (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The"Wikipedia" Rewrite (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I think he was saying to use the article for you outline, and write your own text. As organizing your thoughts and presentation can take some time, I can see how this would help. But you would still be writing out the text, and may even have different conclusions... Disclaimer: When I was in school, there was no wikipedia...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Between my undergraduate and MBA at two different ivy league schools it seems that the best that academia had to offer couldn't snuff out my act. Spejnt more time socializing, networking, and all around being the fun guy that makes connections.
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.
Yup joke's on me! I skipped out on learning why white men are evil, why we should put under performing minorities first, how women are oh so oppressed, and how capitalism is the invention of satan (heard this crap during when I was finishing up my MBA). Instead of was
Re: The"Wikipedia" Rewrite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>
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.
Or as one of my professors said, "If you don't want to learn that's not my problem. We've already gotten your money..."
Simple Solution: Create your *own* (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
If these Universities weren't a a bunch of idiots they would create their OWN _shared_ version of Wikipedia.
Yes, duplicating all that work would be brilliant!
Imagine this:
* Having EVERY article be peer reviewed by actual professors!
You probably don't need a bullet (or equivalent) if you only have one point, especially when it is such a silly one. Professors can peer review Wikipedia articles already.
Re: (Score:2)
never doubt the overall excellence of Wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This is actually the core problem with Wikipedia, you do not want emotional or bias editors, you want people interested in recording facts. Sadly this means Wikipedia is extremely biased in anything slightly controversial or polarizing, political and conflict related and this applies for anything current or historical. That is a lot of very important content that is completely untrustworthy on Wikipedia.
Too much personal bias (Score:1)