California to start using Open Source etextbooks

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

This is one reason why the citing of Wikipedia for academic writing is not supported, except perhaps of an example of something but not as a source of credible information because one cannot trace who wrote what easily and one doesn't know the expertise of who wrote what.

I don't know why you believe this is the case. The citations in Wikipedia are often weblinks are that easier, not harder, to trace than those in a printed text. But you know as well as I that you don't usually trace the source anyway. If one of your students cited an estimated diameter of Pluto, and provided a reference that seemed credible, I very much doubt you would routinely check that reference, find the citation, find out the scientist who made that claim, and then find out his credentials.

And yet Wikipedia's estimated diameter of Pluto is likely more accurate than any printed text over a decade old.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

In addition, one generally doesn't cite a general encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is) for academic writing whether it is printed or not.

That is a more sensible rule.

I think that the thing about Wikipedia and it not being correct and could not be used academically was something that was valid in the beginning when Wikipedia first appeared but this have changed and academic institutions have also begun to change there rules regarding Wikipedia.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

You're the one making that leap of logic from my statement that I tell my students not to cite Wikipedia.

You SAID "I teach at the college level and I tell my students that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information for citing or quoting." I guess that technically could mean that you don't explicitly tell them NOT to cite it, you just take points off if they do, which is also bad teaching. Or perhaps you tell them it's not reliable but let them do it anyway without penalty? I'm not sure that's much better.

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

Wikipedia is never a credible source of information for writing academic papers because we don't know the expertise of the persons writing the entry and it is not easily traceable where certain information in Wikipedia comes from.

See my previous post for a refutation of this.

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

In addition, one generally doesn't cite a general encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is) for academic writing whether it is printed or not.

It depends on the writing, but I take your point. Nevertheless you seem to believe that Wikipedia is less credible than *other* general encylcopedias, which is what I dispute.

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

By the way, if I'm part of the problem, what "problem" would this be?

The problem of a bad and broken education system.

I don't mean to single you out specifically; many of your fellow educators share the same distrust of Wikipedia, and you personally may be an excellent professor otherwise.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Oh, well, anectdotal evidence from your father-in-law surely trumps any systematic study of the issue. In the future we'll consult your father-in-law for the answers to all important questions.

This incisive/cynical wording is just silly and not what i'm willing to read here at MobileRead. Imho it's exactly the same thing that caused the decision to close the conservatory. I don't see what should be wrong when one is referring to the experience of a professional high school teacher.

[sirbruce]

Most errors on Wikipedia fall into two categories:

1. Major unrelated to the substance of the article. This is easily seen and usually corrected in a matter of minutes.

2. Minor vandalism which may be related to the substance of the article but which is quite obviously absurd on the face of it. These sorts of errors may take longer to correct but again are usually evident just by reading.

A vandal is extremely unlikely to make a more subtle change; for example, changing a number slightly or replacing a scientific word with another. Even so, these are usually seen and corrected.

The chances of a student citing such an article, during the relatively small window of time it's vandalized, and not noticing the error based on context or other reading at the time are extremely small.

This leaves original mistakes by the article author in factual information, which then has to pass through many, many different others who never notice it. This can happen, but again, the chances are very low, and are just as likely to happen in other encyclopedias or reference works.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by netseeker

This incisive/cynical wording is just silly and not what i'm willing to read here at MobileRead. Imho it's exactly the same thing that caused the decision to close the conservatory. I don't see what should be wrong when one is referring to the experience of a professional high school teacher.

One example is not evidence for anything. You have to do a scientific study to be able to claim something.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

What a bad idea.

The tactile and physical nature of the book enables quick flipping, mark ups, and usage of a person's spatial and tactile memory. None of this is available in digital books.

Even though I am a HUGE fan of ebooks, I agree that they do not provide the spacial context that pbooks do. I used to be able to visualize where information was in the text, and then pull up what I needed for the test. I find that if I have to go back to get a name or clarify a point in an ebook, it is entirely hit or miss.

But I am completely in favor of getting rid of the weight! My 11 year-old's backpack kills me!

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by tompe

One example is not evidence for anything. You have to do a scientific study to be able to claim something.

Did deltop claim that the example is something like a scientific evidence? I don't think so. But that's not my point anyway. Please don't let us discuss this further, i have no interest in getting involved in a discussion where argumentations are written in a very cynical tone.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by netseeker

This incisive/cynical wording is just silly and not what i'm willing to read here at MobileRead. Imho it's exactly the same thing that caused the decision to close the conservatory. I don't see what should be wrong when one is referring to the experience of a professional high school teacher.

I'll agree it was a sharp comment. But I was being absurd to illustrate the absurdity of the previous poster's argument. The issue is the accuracy and reliability of the information in Wikipedia. The individual, limited experience of an unknown, inaccessible third-party is not particularly helpful in determining this issue. It does not lend credibility to his position. There ARE studies of Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability that are available to all of us, studies which encompass a number of tests more valid than anectdotal evidence. One need only google to find them (if you consider google reliable).

I'm quite sure teachers have problems with wrong information being cited from Wikipedia. I'm also quite sure teachers have problems with wrong information being cited from other sources which they are completely oblivious too because they are not Wikipedia and hence do not arouse suspicion. I'm also quite sure that many teachers are having problems specifically because the information is from Wikipedia, not because it is wrong. And finally, I'm quite sure that if the information is so wrong that the teacher catches it, it's probably something that a properly-educated student should have caught before they made the citation.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Did deltop claim that the example is something like a scientific evidence? I don't think so. But that's not my point anyway. Please don't let us discuss this further, i have no interest in getting involved in a discussion where argumentations are written in a very cynical tone.

I will endeavour to do better; I may have adopted the tone as this is a sore point with me that I'm passionate about. But honestly I think (hope?) the discussion is largely over; anyone can google for information regarding Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability in relation to other sources of reference and decide for themselves.

[netseeker]

@sirbruce: Thanks for the clarification. At the moment just a lot of members (including me) are concerned about a growing variety of "heated" discussions here at MR.

[Elsi]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Even though I am a HUGE fan of ebooks, I agree that they do not provide the spacial context that pbooks do. I used to be able to visualize where information was in the text, and then pull up what I needed for the test. I find that if I have to go back to get a name or clarify a point in an ebook, it is entirely hit or miss.

But I am completely in favor of getting rid of the weight! My 11 year-old's backpack kills me!

I'm also very spacially oriented when it comes to paper books and can quickly thumb back to find a passage or name in the portion I've already read. They way that eBooks overcome this is through search. If you're using an eBook reader/format that does not support searching, then you're likely to have problems finding the information later.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is a more sensible rule.

I think that the thing about Wikipedia and it not being correct and could not be used academically was something that was valid in the beginning when Wikipedia first appeared but this have changed and academic institutions have also begun to change there rules regarding Wikipedia.

It is certainly true that wikipedia has gone a long way toward fixing any problems in edits with reviews and citing references. On any given day a person could inject bad data into wikipedia but within a day or so it will very likely be caught, perhaps in an hour or two, and corrected or reverted. If something stays more than a few days it is usually very reliable.

I personally review the changes on our wiki on a daily basis (or almost daily) and Alex checks it also. That doesn't mean that there are no errors in it but anyone adding completely biased or incorrect data will get caught and the person inputting is likely to be banned or warned. Wikipedia does a lot more checking and more often than I do.

Dale

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is a more sensible rule.

I think that the thing about Wikipedia and it not being correct and could not be used academically was something that was valid in the beginning when Wikipedia first appeared but this have changed and academic institutions have also begun to change there rules regarding Wikipedia.

Umm..it depends on what you're using Wikipedia for. You can cite Wikipedia not as a credible SOURCE of information but say as an example of something else. So for example, if you were to write a paper on say internet communities and practices of information censorship and production, you could cite various aspects of Wikipedia as examples and illustrations of what you're talking about. However, no one in academia who is writing a credible scholarly piece of work is ever going to cite Wikipedia as it stands because anyone and everyone with internet access can change entries.

Did you hear about that editor for Wikipedia who claimed to be a religion professor but turned out to be just a 24-year old from Kentucky with no advanced degree? Check out this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1544...0-entries.html
Now, this is not to say that every Wikipedia entry is marred by scandals. Rather, this is to illustrate the possibilities and ease of damaging Wikipedia entries.

If I wanted to, I could right now go into Wikipedia and make drastic and erroneous changes to any entry I want. And if at that moment someone were looking at that entry they could be citing my erroneous information for their academic paper and they'd be in error.

I have been to Wikipedia entries where I found the information inaccurate, changed it and then because someone else thought the changes were wrong they changed it back. We did that for a short while and then I just left it alone.

Again, Wikipedia is good to get some general knowledge but not necessarily scholarly credible pieces of information.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Even though I am a HUGE fan of ebooks, I agree that they do not provide the spacial context that pbooks do. I used to be able to visualize where information was in the text, and then pull up what I needed for the test. I find that if I have to go back to get a name or clarify a point in an ebook, it is entirely hit or miss.

But I am completely in favor of getting rid of the weight! My 11 year-old's backpack kills me!

I agree with you, spot on!! Spot on!!

I'm a huge fan of ebooks too and find it useful for the kind of work I do. However, when I was writing my qualifying exam papers (which took a whole year) I don't think I would want to use primarily the ebook format because I only have one reader which means only one page open at a time. When I wrote my qualifying exam papers, I had multiple books open at the same time and would sometimes flip through one book and then another to get some general idea about something and then write a bit, then flip some more.

Ebooks simply do not facilitate that kind of writing and reading process.

At this stage I don't need to do that kind of writing and reading but may have to soon again for some other pieces of writing I'm doing.