View Single Post
Old 05-09-2009, 05:56 AM   #21
sirbruce
Provocateur
sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sirbruce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
sirbruce's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,859
Karma: 505847
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Device: Kindle Touch, Kindle 2, Kindle DX, iPhone 3GS
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltop View Post
How exactly does telling a group of students that Wikipedia isn't reliable for quoting or citing make someone a bad teacher?
Because it's no more or less try than any other source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltop View Post
All the teachers that I know tell their students exactly the same thing.
That doesn't make it right. All the teachers used to say that humans had 48 chromosones, but it turns out it was only 46.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltop View Post
I also don't see where thibaulthalpern makes the claim that there are reliable sources that should be just believed without using any backup sources either. There's no reference in the post to regurgitating read info too. I'm sure any good teacher teaches critical thinking.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltop View Post
To call someone a bad teacher and accuse them of being part of the problem just because they understand the problems of citing from wikipedia (an opinion that is fully justified) is awfully judgmental and could easily be seen as offensive.
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.

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.
sirbruce is offline   Reply With Quote