Wikipedia & Google: Free Schooling?

[raolduke]

Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?

 

[raolduke]

The only problem that I can see with that is the lack of social interaction - the whole experience.. Another problem that arises in my mind is credibility.

 

[neurocomp2003]

credibility would be the big issue, but other than that yes free schooling..only problem is as a student (1) you have to like reading (2) you don't require hands on.

 

[siddharth]

Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?

Here's a very informative article by Chris Hillman on this issue.

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).
...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/HTML/wrong.html

 

[raolduke]

I know this is one of the problems to it but there is a lot of truth to the information posted. There would be a way to make it more powerful but its just because there isn't enough people who are informed posting, maybe because they don't care.

 

[ZapperZ]

I know this is one of the problems to it but there is a lot of truth to the information posted.

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. I mean, just look at the stuff some people try to pass off as physics on PF alone. They probably "learned" their physics off the web too, no less.

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

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.

Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.

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]

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.

Then read the citations and judge for yourself.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then read the citations and judge for yourself.

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.

 

[mathwonk]

well i just tried an experiment, googling "tensor products". Indeed the first two hits were for wikipedia, so i read the first article.

It was a little clunky to me, apparently written by someone who knows a lot about using them, and probably uses them in research, but is not a mathematician, and not an algebraist for sure.

The beginning of the article was a formula in coordinates, of essentially no interest to me, for understanding tensors. then later the abstract definition was given but incorrectly, as the author did not grasp that a certain set of vectors (called I there) did not in fact form a subspace, but only the generators for one.

the article was somewhat helpful, and clearly by an expert of something, but not really of tensors and not of mathematics.

then i skipped down to the third hit from google, the following link

http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/tensors3.htmlfrom cambridge university it seems. this was much better, not only error free, but more elementary, better written, and more helpful at actually understanding what tensors are and why they are defined as they are, and what problems they are designed to handle.

in fact this may be the best article i have seen on them.

i cannot see how a new learner however would know to ignore the wikipedia article in favor of this one, unless of course he adopted the apparently obvious rule advocated here, namely that cambridge university is a better source of knowledge than wikipedia U.

but fools will always eschew good advice. what can be done?

 

[Manchot]

Mathwonk, you inadvertently brought up another good point. The Wikipedia editors are all writing for different audiences. Some people, for example, might only be interested in the result of a derivation. Others might want to see that derivation in gory detail. Some might want to learn the mathematics behind tensors, while others only want to know how to use them.

 

[Quaoar]

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.

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]

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.

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!

And one certainly cannot blindly accept the validity of an Wikipedia entry just because it has citations!

Zz.

 

[Ki Man]

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]

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?

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?

 

[Quaoar]

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

I dare you to try the edits you've described and see how long it takes for them to be reverted. I bet you it will be shorter than you think.

 

[cristo]

Isn't a superficial idea better than no idea at all?

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: "tomorrow". 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]

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: "tomorrow". 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!

Question: How would you have spelled the word had your teacher not told you?

 

[cristo]

Question: How would you have spelled the word had your teacher not told you?

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 surprise-- 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]

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps you should read the original post. Does it say anything about Wikipedia and Google being your ONLY resource? No.

Read the title of this thread.

Isn't a superficial idea better than no idea at all?

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!

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?

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.

 

[Quaoar]

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 surprise-- 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]

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]

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.

No one is disputing that. It is a resource of a lot of crap. Free crap.

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

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.

The title is "Wikipedia and Google?" Tell me what I'm missing here.

"Your original contention that one can distinguish between valid and garbage information simply based on the availability of citation is STILL clearly wrong."

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.

You seem to be a master at reading into things I didn't say and ignoring things I did say, so I'm done with this conversation. No use arguing with those who refuse to listen.

 

[cristo]

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.

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 probability 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]

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 probability 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.

And I disagree, I think it can be used as a source of schooling if other options are not readily available. Besides, the consensus seems to be that its pretty accurate for broad low-level topics, which is where I think it is the most useful.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

In message #7, you quote JUST this part of my post:

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.

And this is ALL that you answered:

Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.

That's it! You answered my question simply by using the fact that an article must have citations. Period.

Only later on when I challenged the rational of that kind of a response did you then say that one ALSO has to read the citations, to which I then addressed the fallacy of such a thing, considering that in many cases, those citations cite other published papers and even textbooks! Why not go directly there in the first place?

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

Why not go directly there in the first place?

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]

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".

"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]

"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.

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.