Monday, November 26th 2007
American School Librarian Starts 'Say No to Wikipedia' Campaign
Any member of techPowerUp! that currently attends or has attended a public school, and done a research paper at said public school, knows that using Wikipedia as a source is a huge no-no. New Jersey librarian Linda O'Connor decided to take the verbal no-nos and grading penalties on papers citing Wikipedia a step further. She designed, purchased, and distributed "just say no to Wikipedia" posters all around the local high school that she works in. O'Connor of course has the backing of several teachers that do not like to see students too lazy to find and cite the sources themselves.
There are, of course, legitimate reasons behind banning a well-meaning website from research papers. One student nearly wrote a Martin Luther King Jr. report based on information found on a white-supremacist version of the Wikipedia article on the black man. Another student found a drastically lowered casualty count when researching the Vietnam war. Wikipedia of course does not tolerate these instances when found, and deals with them by locking the articles to editing by new/untrustworthy users. Teachers argue that such methods are too little, too late.
Source:
The Inquirer
There are, of course, legitimate reasons behind banning a well-meaning website from research papers. One student nearly wrote a Martin Luther King Jr. report based on information found on a white-supremacist version of the Wikipedia article on the black man. Another student found a drastically lowered casualty count when researching the Vietnam war. Wikipedia of course does not tolerate these instances when found, and deals with them by locking the articles to editing by new/untrustworthy users. Teachers argue that such methods are too little, too late.
24 Comments on American School Librarian Starts 'Say No to Wikipedia' Campaign
Also, why would you visit a white supremacist version of wikipedia?
but I still rely on it.
I don't know if anyone else had this problem, but in my school they blocked just about every website even a bunch of sites that were specifically meant for research. they blocked wiki in my school and even the teachers were pissed. They are supposed to get us ready for college right? they barely block websites in college. so much for getting us ready.
I know many people resisted email... and still do... and go on and on about how it lowers standards of writing etc. And these people want to live in the dark ages, before electricity.
But I will defend the wiki. There is nothing MORE VALUABLE in education than total immersion. And wiki lets you do just that: go to a new topic or subject, and in minutes, you get an angle.
It's up to the reader to then VERIFY what has been read... just in the same way that you need to also challenge, investigate, research, think for yourself, about nearly any "fact" that we get through modern media... be it chat, gossip, news channels, newspapers, advertising, films, or wiki.
IT IS THE TEACHERS JOB to educate the pupils HOW to use the wiki effectively. (Indeed how to think critically about politics and spin too). The teachers are only MOANING because they are TOO LAZY to write new assignments and are just regurgitating the same old same old which IS AVAILABLE for instant access at wiki, and in 99.9% of the cases, HAS MORE KNOWLEDGE than the teacher themselves.
My moto "JUST SAY NO TO LAZY TEACHERS"
But seriously,.my drunk Uncle just LOVES to edit Wiki, when he gets on a roll and puts his spin on things in the definitions it is a hoot!!
This is only one reasons I use Wikipedia for "entertainment purposes only":laugh:
But, only because the kids are too lazy and/or stupid to notice at the bottom of 90% or Wikipedia articles, there is a nice little scetion titled "REFERENCES", where you could easily click those reference links and verify the information you would like to use, and just cite that friggin reference instead of Wikipedia!!!!!
That's the problem with most kids nowadays (no offense to y'all teenagers here), but the majority of them just don't think . . .
I don't like the fact that lazy kids get everything off of it, but you have to draw a line on it. Teachers are just made for the fact that new tech. is whats making their students smarter then them. My Economics teacher in 12 grade gave a group an F on their 6 week project because he couldn't make more then 2 questions out of their story... WTF?? they did a great job and I didn't have a question to ask...
As a university prof, I know this all too well - students come to college nowadays with as much sense as a turd when it comes to doing actual research.
Wiki told me it's a place to meet hot/smart chicks - so how does going to these "libraries" help students to do their homework? This seems more like counterproductive to me. Maybe Ms. O'Connor got things mixed up a little.
. . . not saying that there isn't good information there at all, I mean, it's a quick site to check if you've got a good idea about something, but just want a little info to doublecheck your thoughts.
Again, I was taught back in high school, when researching for reports and essays and the like, that something known as common or agreed upon fact doesn't really need as many sources of references - but if your topic is controversial, you want to make sure that your references have good references too (I had quite a few teachers that would randomly spot check students papers), and anything amiss can discredit your paper and hurt your final score.
There was a reason for that, my hand writing was so poor looking that I had hear it from couple of teachers that it was hard to make out what it said. I wrote like we were told as kids (don't know what it is in English, but www.fontbros.com/images/1150/TYPA-SWSC-SP.gif) and many others wrote like the text here (don't know what this writing style is called either) that is more clear.
In University they'd fail my paper if it was hand written. Strict rules of margins, font sizes and other stuff. So the times change, I doubt there is no wikipedia campaigns in 2020.
If you submit an internet based source when doing assessments/assignments in many subjects (especially history) you will be looked upon as a moron.
Of course as with anything its always best to use more than one point of reference as otherwise you can be drawn in by the writers personal stance on the subject. (This can also apply to books as well).
Yes I agree that wikipedia should not be your only source, however most of it IS reliable, IF you can grab hold of many other sources which justify the information. Its certainly not completely comprehensive, but it is indeed a composition of facts. See, most people use wikipedia in this sense, that it summarises what they research. Basically, introducing them to the subject matter. I've used wikipedia a LOT, and frankly its very useful, as I use it as a building block then with external sources to justify what wikipedia says.
This is another ludicrous example of the popular things being bombarded by criticisms, example Windows, the iPod, etcetra... I've seen shitloads of websites with totally inaccurate/byast information, that has NO regulation. I've even used one of them.... now, those teachers, what do you say about that?
You can see how pointless banning wiki is in my previous statments. Teachers are supposed to teach and not have immature rivalries, they are supposed to try to make their students learn as much as possible, not hinder them!
That didn't stop me from using online libraries, though - there is no difference there, IMO. A book is a book whether it appears on the screen or on paper.