Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Monday, February 4, 2013
Question of the Week: Is Wikipedia bad for education?
Well, yes and no. Wikipedia can be a good jumping off point for educational endeavors and general knowledge, but it isn't a reliable resource for any kind of scholarly work. Thankfully, most of the teachers I've encountered specifically state in lesson plans that Wikipedia is not an acceptable resource for papers.
There are some who would argue that Wikipedia is fine. I'm not one of them. I don't feel that Wikipedia is reliable, and I certainly don't think it's always correct in its information.
For one, Wikipedia allows anyone to create and update entries. This can lead to some interesting updates, as we saw in 2011, when fans of Sarah Palin changed the Wikipedia entry for Paul Revere to reflect her incredibly erroneous recollection of history. Thankfully, the entry was corrected, but it begs the question about all the entries on Wikipedia that no one is policing. There is, in effect, no quality assurance on Wikipedia.
Also, I have a healthy education bias (shocking, I know) and I prefer to get my information from trusted and reputable sources. Experts in the field, as it were. As James Lowen taught me, always look at the source of the information. I would trust Wikipedia far more if Neil DeGrasse Tyson were updating writing entries rather than Joe Average with a laptop.
Wikipedia can be a good starting point for anyone doing research who doesn't know where to start. In fact, I feel the one of the only useful sections of any Wikipedia article is at the bottom of the entry-the sources. This is where the real information is contained. Reading the original source provides the most accurate (and hopefully objective) information.
Another useful section is the revision history. The revision history coincides with the sources and will help you determine if you're looking at the most up to date information (although, with historical entries like the one about Paul Revere above, most recent isn't necessarily most accurate.)
The main point to take away is that Wikipedia is a resource, but one that requires your critical thinking and deductive skills. Using Wikipedia is akin to being a detective. You cannot take it at face value, you must do your own research. Anything worth knowing is worth researching. And as always: Question Everything!
Well, yes and no. Wikipedia can be a good jumping off point for educational endeavors and general knowledge, but it isn't a reliable resource for any kind of scholarly work. Thankfully, most of the teachers I've encountered specifically state in lesson plans that Wikipedia is not an acceptable resource for papers.
There are some who would argue that Wikipedia is fine. I'm not one of them. I don't feel that Wikipedia is reliable, and I certainly don't think it's always correct in its information.
For one, Wikipedia allows anyone to create and update entries. This can lead to some interesting updates, as we saw in 2011, when fans of Sarah Palin changed the Wikipedia entry for Paul Revere to reflect her incredibly erroneous recollection of history. Thankfully, the entry was corrected, but it begs the question about all the entries on Wikipedia that no one is policing. There is, in effect, no quality assurance on Wikipedia.
Also, I have a healthy education bias (shocking, I know) and I prefer to get my information from trusted and reputable sources. Experts in the field, as it were. As James Lowen taught me, always look at the source of the information. I would trust Wikipedia far more if Neil DeGrasse Tyson were updating writing entries rather than Joe Average with a laptop.
Wikipedia can be a good starting point for anyone doing research who doesn't know where to start. In fact, I feel the one of the only useful sections of any Wikipedia article is at the bottom of the entry-the sources. This is where the real information is contained. Reading the original source provides the most accurate (and hopefully objective) information.
Another useful section is the revision history. The revision history coincides with the sources and will help you determine if you're looking at the most up to date information (although, with historical entries like the one about Paul Revere above, most recent isn't necessarily most accurate.)
The main point to take away is that Wikipedia is a resource, but one that requires your critical thinking and deductive skills. Using Wikipedia is akin to being a detective. You cannot take it at face value, you must do your own research. Anything worth knowing is worth researching. And as always: Question Everything!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment