Anti-Wikipedia Teachers?

Question

my teachers absolutely hate wikipedia. they're fairly irrational about it, which I find funny. I was wondering if anyone could offer insight into this, other than the usual spiel about wiki's unreliability. thank! ^_^

Answer 1

Wikipedia is actually pretty accurate. The beauty of it is that anybody can edit any article, any time, any place, for free. Once an article is published, it can be edited by others as well, not just the author. So if enough people read the article and cross check it to verify its information, then statistically, it will be accurate. Similar to eyewitness accounts in a courtroom, if you have enough people corroborating the same thing, then it can be assumed to be truthful.

The other thing one has to consider about any source is the author's credibility. Many wiki articles are written by people in academia and industry who are knowledgable on their disciplines so they can be considered credible. What would motivate someone to lie and compose an outlandish wiki article? What would they gain? I suppose they could try and alter history, but ultimately, the article would be corrected by others so their version of the truth would not hold water for very long. Since wiki articles are written by multiple authors it is not as biased as a newspaper article or book, which is usually written by a single author. I find that wikipedia usually presents both sides of the story fairly equitably.

Now, one may go into a wiki with a mistrust of people and assume they are trying to be duped, or they can rely on statistical probability and the assumption that people are generally good and want to post correct information. Next time, check a wiki article with the real thing (i.e. book, encyclopedia, magazine, newspaper, etc) and you will find that it is accurate, if it isn't, correct it yourself. The other advantage of a wiki is that it takes no time to revise, publish, and print, therefore, it is more up-to-date and it saves paper.

However, one should always use multiple references when gathering information to buttress an argument. Wikipedia alone is not enough.

Answer 2

Wikipedia is not written, compiled and researced the way the encylopedia is the library is. All of the pieces on wikipedia were written and submitted by...wikipedia readers! Some folks use wikipedia as a wa to generat publicity for a cause or even a movie. So, while much of the information on wikipedia is correct, it is not always a sure thing. Any info from wikipedia used in a report or essay should be rechecked in more traditional resouce options. That is why so many teachers are anti-wiki. They have classes full of students who aren't verifying information since they may not understand the source it comes from!

Answer 3

That is the reason. Anyone can write for Wiki regardless of the truth or facts that they represent. There is no system of checking, double checking, and triple checking the information like in printed media. You rely on the individual to be correct. i could post that man really never walked on the moon that it was just a plan to frustrate the USSR but that didn't matter because there was no USSR after world war two it was absorbed into Poland after Poland won the war, but then a giant chocolate meteor crashed into Poland and pushed it five miles underground and now they make the best candy in the world because they found the secret choclate river that flows under everything. Use that info in a report and see what grade you get. See what I mean? Aspire!

Answer 4

Check out this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm, which starts...

"Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy."

Ultimately you need to look at multiple sources, rather than rely upon only one. I would give a paper an F if it was based on a single text, even one written by a "certified" expert. (Except that I am not a teacher!) Tho' I think Wikipedia is a great starting point to find sources which frequently disagree with each other.

Answer 5

i can not comprehend that anti-Wikipedia hysteria. I even have been employing encyclopedias for the reason that till now i ought to examine, and that i quickly discovered that _all_ encyclopedias comprise blunders and omissions! interior the old paper encyclopedia's we had to place in writing corrections interior the margins. in a protracted time i all started encyclopedias on CD and DVD, and there i could no longer only right suited something! a minimum of in Wikipedia, i'm able to dive suitable in and only right suited and upload information, understanding that 1000's of human beings will come by employing quickly, and be certain my corrections. yet many of the time that's purely some small piece of vandalism that must be wiped sparkling up, and maximum of of the time I ought to be rapid approximately it, or somebody else could have performed it for me. i do no longer think of that Wikipedia is the only right encyclopedia ever. however the incontrovertible fact that 1000's of volunteers carry directly to date, be certain the articles and upload new information conventional, makes it a _great_ encyclopedia which could carry its own against the contest. that's only that _any_ encyclopedia has its _own particular_ weaknesses.

Answer 6

Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is the same as using random people off the street as your source.

However, a well-written Wikipedia article cites its sources. The articles can be good starting points -- they do give a general overview of the topic. You should use and read the references listed at the bottom of the page for actual research, but even then you only get the point-of-view of the author, so additional research is still necessary.

Answer 7

wikipedia is basically information that you and I can contribute. that means even if i dont know alot of the subject, i can still put whatever i know on the website, even if its untrue. your teacher doesnt want you to be fed information that may be wrong. When i was in school, i went to a library and read books that were certified by experts and professionals. thats how you learn, because when you go out the real world and sprout this gibberish you learn on a website, you look silly