View Single Post
Old 05-09-2009, 07:46 AM   #23
deltop
Zealot
deltop doesn't litterdeltop doesn't litterdeltop doesn't litter
 
Posts: 136
Karma: 244
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: Kobo Glo
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce View Post
Because it's no more or less try than any other source.
In my experience it certainly is less reliable than other sources of information that are accepted in academic circles. Journals, text books and the like. Wikipedia needs to evolve more before it's accepted as a serious source of information. Information on wikipedia just isn't reviewed enough by people who are qualified to do so. Anyone can edit it regardless of whether they know what they are talking about. You can't say the same for academic journals which are peer reviewed or course text books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
The fact he singled out Wikipedia specifically indicates, by inference, that he doesn't have a problem with said students citing from regular encyclopedias, which could be even more innacurate. The fact he trusts the info written down in dusty old books, but not on Wikipedia, indicates a propensity for accepting regurgitated read info without thoughtful analysis as to the source. His inability to accept Wikipedia as a source indicates a weakness in critical thinking.
He didn't bring up Wikipedia, another poster did so he's hardly singling it out. And yes encyclopedias and the like can be inaccurate too, but mostly due to out of date information. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The amount of just plain wrong information on wiki far outstrips the amount of inaccurate information you will find in text books.

And by using words like "inferring" and "indicates" shows that you really have no idea what his thoughts are on printed media as reference sources. Your just guessing based on one widely held opinion he happens holds on wikipedia. Hardly a bases for saying he's bad at his job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
The issue is not that he fully understands the problems of Wikipedia; I doubt he even does, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. The issue is that he doesn't equivalently understand the problems of other cited sources, and yet accepts those sources while marginalizing Wikipedia. He furthermore foists this attitude off on students, which is bad teaching, especially in a digital age where people who do not know how to properly use tools like Wikipedia will be at a disadvantage in adulthood.
Again you've no idea if he understands the problems of other cited sources, since he's yet to post an opinion of these. His opinion of Wikipedia was posted due to another poster bringing it up. I didn't see it as marginalizing Wikipedia at all. He's also a teacher at college level and has therefore probably had to deal with this very issue for a few years now, he's probably far more qualified to form an opinion on it than either of us.

I know that my father in law who teaches high school here in the uk is always complaining about the issue. His students are always trying to use wiki as a reference and therefore the number of inaccuracies that pop up in their essays and course work has increased dramatically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
People should not be offended when they are informed they hold a poorly reasoned opinion; they should be thankful that someone is trying to correct their belief for their own benefit as well as the benefit of others.
I doubt very much that his opinion is poorly reasoned, although it could be, since he's yet to explain to us how he came to it. Although since he's a teacher I can guess that he's probably had quite abit of experience at dealing with inaccurate info on wiki. I certainly would be offended if someone took a three line post by me on a forum, inferred far too much from it and then proceeded not only to tell me that I was bad at my job but also proceeded to tell me how I should be doing my job.

Last edited by deltop; 05-09-2009 at 07:53 AM.
deltop is offline   Reply With Quote