- #1
raolduke
- 156
- 0
Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?
raolduke said:Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?
Some Warnings About the Wikipedia
...
Many critics of the Wikipedia, including some who like myself have extensive experience working within the Wikipedia community, both by writing articles and by internal discussions of problems and policies, have noted that
* Wikipedia typically offers a plausible appearing (but often badly organized, error-ridden, and imbalanced) article on almost any topic, including quite technical topics in relativistic physics,
* Wikipedia articles increasingly tend to dominate Google search results in favor of more authoritative and reliable academic websites (such as the ones listed elsewhere in this website).
...
raolduke said:I know this is one of the problems to it but there is a lot of truth to the information posted.
ZapperZ said:But how would you know this when you are LEARNING something new? You have no way to discriminate between what is legitimate and what is crap.
Quaoar said:Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.
ZapperZ said:Nope. I've seen crackpot websites that made TONS of citations. But they bardardized what was written in there. People think that just because they can make references to something somehow legitimizes whatever it is they're pushing. After all, look at those websites on creationism that CITES the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a basis to argue that evolution isn't possible!
Just because they can make such references and citations does not mean they are spewing something valid.
Zz.
Quaoar said:Then read the citations and judge for yourself.
ZapperZ said:Then why bother reading such articles in the FIRST place? Isn't it a lot more direct to simply pick up a legitimate text? Remember, your original argument was simply to just see if an article actually have citations. Now you want the person reading it to actually (i) get the citations and (ii) read them.
And how many of such references can be understood by people whose only access is wikipedia and google? Anyone who has done any considerable amount of research work and literature search can easily understand that this CAN be an involved process, where going into one paper can easily lead to another paper and another and another. Besides, physics papers are NOT meant to be pedagogically clear. They are not meant to be used as teaching tools. It certainly isn't to be used for 'schooling', whether it is free or not!
Zz.
Quaoar said:You're clearly not familiar with Wikipedia. While some citations are scientific papers (specifically in some of the more advanced topics), most are usually links to other websites where people try to explain the topic to those who are unfamiliar with it. For the sciences, these links often belong to professors of high reputation.
Wikipedia gets your foot in the door. Assume I'm a naive middle school student and I want to know what "light" is. Wikipedia allows me to build a basic framework for my understanding, and through the citations, allows me to probe deeper if I wish.
It is totally mindless to suggest that it cannot be used for learning because it has some inaccuracies, period. Wikipedia has two advantages over books: The contents are available on-demand from any computer terminal, and it's free. Let's assume that the accuracy rate is terrible: 50%. I would rather kids learn from material that's 50% correct over not learning anything at all.
ZapperZ said:But books are written with a clear pedagogical character in mind. That is what makes, for example, Griffith's E&M better than, let's say, Ritz-Milford-Christy. Both of them cover essentially the SAME material, but Griffith approaches it in a clear and transparent manner. People who write such books spend almost as much effort figuring out HOW to present the material, not just spew it out and let the readers pick out what they need. That is what Wikipedia does, regardless of the accuracy of the content (which, to me, is still suspect).
I've looked at MANY pages that people on the 'net have referred to, and many of them are NOT suitable to be used for 'schooling', which is what the OP asked in the first place. You get the superficial idea of what it is, but you certainly cannot equate it to the SAME level as what you would get reading a proper textbook. There's just no comparison here. There's no effort at all, if any, put into the consideration on whether the presentation of the material is pedagogically sound. And this is of no fault of Wikipedia because, by definition, it is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia", and NOT a learning material. It is when people confuse it as such is when it is being used for what it isn't meant to be. Getting the superficial idea is NOT the same as learning the subject matter. It is not even close! Wikipedia gives the former, NOT the latter. If your argument is that people can go elsewhere afterwards, then THAT'S my whole point - you do not get the full lesson from Wikipedia! Go back to the OP and see what is being asked!
Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?
Ki Man said:Not everything on wikipedia is by people who know what they are talking about. Since anyone can edit it, someone can just dash in things that they heard or think is true here and there or delete things that they disagree with. Accuracy is not guranteed.
example: let's say I'm an eighth grader who just looked up the wikipedia article on 'anti-gravity.' I disagree with the first statement on the article that says "It does not refer to countering the gravitational force by an equal and opposite force as a helicopter does," so I go through and edit it to say that it repels gravity and I go even further to say that a star made of Anti-matter would make anti-gravity. Credible? I doubt it
Quaoar said:Isn't a superficial idea better than no idea at all?
cristo said:No; not if it's wrong, and not for someone who is new to a field and learning. When I was at school a teacher gave me this spelling of the word tomorrow: "tommorrow". So, I thought, the teacher's right, so I'll listen to her. A while later it was pointed out to me that she was incorrect, however I had got into the habit of spelling it incorrectly, and i messed up the spelling of that word for a long time afterwards.
Ok, maybe that's a bad example, but my point it that if you're learning from a source that may be incorrect, it could be disastrous to your learning, not to mention being a rather large waste of time!
Quaoar said:Question: How would you have spelled the word had your teacher not told you?
Quaoar said:Perhaps you should read the original post. Does it say anything about Wikipedia and Google being your ONLY resource? No.
Isn't a superficial idea better than no idea at all?
I'm not claiming that Wikipedia rivals any professionally written book, I'm claiming it has clear advantages over them, namely, it is freely available and accessible anywhere. Where is a middle schooler going to get the money for Griffiths? Especially one that belongs to a lower-income family? Are you going to carry Griffiths everywhere you go, along with the rest of your library?
cristo said:I'd probably have looked it up in the dictionary, but since my teacher was there, I asked her-- you do presume that a teacher knows the answer to your questions, especially at a young age, and if they don't, then would look up the answer themselves.
Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that if you presume that wiki is correct, then you will be in for a big suprise-- but not just in a trivial spelling of a word (like in my example). The parts of wiki that are wrong will tend not to be simple articles, but will be the more advanced articles (since there aren't as many capable of writing/checking them!) Therefore, a layperson reading these may think "yea, that makes sense", when it's really incorrect.
[As an aside, I'm sure there's been a recent thread on this subject]
Quaoar said:There has been a recent thread on the subject, but I didn't really actively participate.
My point is that there are many on this forum who seem to be completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general and like to make blanket comments to prove a point. There's no disputing: The Internet isn't the most authoritative resource out there. However, it's *a* resource, and its one that's free and easy to access.
ZapperZ said:Read the title of this thread.
No, it isn't, especially when the person reading it isn't AWARE that all he/she is getting is at the superficial level. I've seen WAY too many people use wikipedia like a bible, AND even using it for college term papers and homework, so much so that many schools now have banned from using it as a reference!
Why not? I certainly moved with my books! And if earlier generations can certainly do that, why is the present-day generation THAT WIMPY? Have we simply settled for mediocrity instead of first-rate information? Do we simply not care anymore about the QUALITY of information that we get? Do we only need information in the form of sound-bites for people who can't sit down and properly digest the information they are getting?
I'm sorry, I don't buy this, and I certainly would not care to lower such standards just so we can give things out for "free". Furthermore, this is NOT a thread on the "merits" of Wikipedia. We have had several of those already, and you're welcome to join those and resurrect them from the dead. The OP had a very specific question regarding "schooling" using stuff that one finds on the internet. Your original contention that one can distinguish between valid and garbage information simply based on the availability of citation is STILL clearly wrong.
Zz.
"Your original contention that one can distinguish between valid and garbage information simply based on the availability of citation is STILL clearly wrong."
Huh? I use wikipedia, but only for things that aren't important. It's got an article about pretty much everything you could possibly want. However, wiki is not where I would go to learn technical subjects, since I know that there's a high probabilty that there will be mistakes. I use books or lecture notes freely available on university websites.Quaoar said:My point is that there are many on this forum who seem to be completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general and like to make blanket comments to prove a point.
cristo said:Huh? I use wikipedia, but only for things that aren't important. It's got an article about pretty much everything you could possibly want. However, wiki is not where I would go to learn technical subjects, since I know that there's a high probabilty that there will be mistakes. I use books or lecture notes freely available on university websites.
So, I've not made a blanket comment to make a point, but I have simply stated (what is more or less) a fact: wiki should not be used as a source of schooling.
Quaoar said:That was absolutely not my contention, you read a single sentence and extrapolated my contention without any evidence. I followed up with saying that one needs to read the cited work to gauge credibility. Clearly you are letting your animosity towards Wikipedia get in the way of your judgment.
ZapperZ said:But how would you know this when you are LEARNING something new? You have no way to discriminate between what is legitimate and what is crap.
Quaoar said:Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.
ZapperZ said:Why not go directly there in the first place?
Quaoar said:Because you were ignoring the fact that there could even be citations. I didn't feel it necessary to explain that they have to be good citations, that should have been obvious from the word "proper".
ZapperZ said:"properly cited" doesn't say anything about the article itself. There are plenty of crackpot websites that "properly cited" many physics papers. You somehow seem to ONLY think that I can't read and "ignoring the fact that" it is what you WROTE that does not correspond to what you mean!
Zz.
Quaoar said:Sure it does, if you read the citations, which you SHOULD do. You seem to think I meant "proper" as in the article writer successfully linked to another page. I mean proper as in the citation is relevant and supports the argument of the article.
What I wrote is exactly what I mean. You're too stubborn to understand that you simply misinterpreted what I wrote.
ZapperZ said:Oy vey. And all the others that also questioned your insistence of using Wikipedia in the way you "intended" are also "stubborn" and didn't interpret you correctly? As I recall, the discussion here is MORE than just "properly cited". For some odd reason, you ignored the OP original premise.
Besides, would you like to, for example, check the Wikipedia page on "Photoemission Spectroscopy" and tell me if that page would qualify as having "properly cited" citations?
Again, I can easily show you many crackpot webpages that used "relevant citations" to support their argument. Just go to Crank Dot Net if you don't believe me. You want these people who, by your own arguments, do not have access to such journals and texts, to do their own research on things they can't get access to. Yet, you argued to let them have even wrong and superficial information, which means that they don't have to care about those "citations". So on the one hand, it is OK for them to have such superficial and wrong info. But on the other hand, you insist that they have to check the validity of that info by digging into those citations. What happened to the virtues of having even 50% wrong info that you were selling just a few minutes ago?
Zz.
Quaoar said:Oy vey yourself. Go back and read what I read, I'm through arguing.
kdinser said:If I know absolutely nothing about a topic, I go to wiki to learn the vocabulary. Then, depending on how much I need to know and how important my understanding is, I'll look for other websites using the vocabulary that I was able to get from wiki sites. As anyone with any web experience will tell you, knowing the vocabulary is the most important thing when it comes to good searching practices.
Bottom line to me is, wiki is useful for a lay person to get the very most basic under standing about a subject, and I wouldn't trust it at all for anything past first year or 1.5 year college. Even then, I would look for other collaboration before I used it as a source.