Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 9233 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3828 times:
Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 1): If you're learning more from Wikipedia than your teacher you should probably petition for that teacher to be sacked immediately.
It's not an entirely trusted website anyway - anybody can edit it. I'd take it with a pinch of salt, at the very least.
Just like a teacher, funny enough.
I think Wikipedia is one of those "killer apps" that you come across every once and a while. It is a Killer App for the Internet. Sure, it's not 100% accurate, but neither are school textbooks that I have seen, and at least in Wikipedia, footnotes are all right there. And you are free to dig into anything that strikes you as odd.
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3581 times:
I have no problem whatsoever with Wikipedia and I trust it very much. However, I do know how to separate the crap articles from the good ones. I've edited many articles, specially in aviation, but only to make things for the better, and people usually like my edits.
And it's obvious that any article on controversial subjects (9-11 for example) won't usually be too objective.
I feel like when I get past one paragraph, I go on a tangeant trying to figure out what some of the words mean
Sounds like you got ADD
Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 1): I'd take it with a pinch of salt, at the very least.
I disagree wholeheartedly. On a properly done article (like the GPS one I linked to above) you get a myriad of experts worldwide making superb contributions and the end result is an extremely informative and detailed article. But of course, you get the occasional trolls who have no life and their hobby is to ruin some articles.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3766 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3571 times:
With the Texas curriculum coming up, I'd say Wikipedia would be a better choice to study from.
I can honestly say that everything I've learned, about 40% has been Wikipedia.
For instance: we all know that the largest country on Earth is Russia, and it was a giant when it was the USSR. My 11th grade history teacher had the nerve to say that Canada was the biggest country on Earth since Russia lost nearly half its territory when the USSR fell. There was a world map in the classroom so I already knew that she was wrong, but even if there hadn't been one, I still knew she was wrong. Why? Thanks Wikipedia.
In Wikipedia's defense, they HAVE gotten even stricter with the editing. Articles that aren't so relevant are free for everyone to edit, but articles that are read on a daily basis and that can stray from its original point either by fanaticism and or criticism are restricted from editing unless you're a member. Mess up and your IP will be banned.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
OMG that site has F'ed me up for good, I just clicked on something and got to some pictures of a girl named Nikki Catsouras. She died in a very nasty car accident and her head is mostly ripped off of her body, AND THERE ARE PICTURES...... That is sick, made me feel sick and really messed my night up. I wont forget that for a long time.
A week ago I was visiting my father, and the Texas textbook issue came up. I mentioned to him that when I was in high school (nearly 30 years ago), about half of our social studies reading list was written by Noam Chomsky. My teachers preached Chomsky as if he were the wisest person on Earth, and our exams were geared towards standards.
I had no idea of who Chomsky was at the time, but I remember thinking of him being a little bit flaky, even as naive as I was back then. Had I had access to something like Wikipedia or the internet in general, I could have found out a bit more and challenged him. But like good kids at the time we just accepted the indoctrination we were given. When my dad found out (30 years late) that were were taught Chomsky at school as if it were gospel, he was furious.
There is no way around it - teachers have a huge amount of influence on kids. Given that teachers tend to lean to the left in general, we have to be extremely watchful over what they are teaching. It is also helpful to teach kids how to be reasonably skeptical. If people tell you that so-and-so is wonderful, look him/her/it up, look into the sources. Don't accept the word of a teacher as gospel. Sources closest to the origin are always best - never accept interpretations at face value, etc.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5910 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
Well, there's a reason Wikipedia likes to have sources. It's a great starting point for getting some detailed general knowledge (yes, an oxymoron, but it pretty much sums it up). Obviously the math and science articles are going to be better (if sometimes unreadable if you haven't gone past calculus). Just stay away from most of the current events stuff.
Now, to address some OT issues:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9): OMG that site has F'ed me up for good, I just clicked on something and got to some pictures of a girl named Nikki Catsouras. She died in a very nasty car accident and her head is mostly ripped off of her body, AND THERE ARE PICTURES
Oh, that's nothing. There are pages that basically make fun of kids (8-12) who commit suicide.... and it gets worse from there.
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 13): Nope, seeing pictures of a coworker who had been sucked into the engine of a CO 737 kinda turned me off.
Those pictures should be mandatory viewing in every airline ramp and maintenance training program. I came within seconds of witnessing something like that almost happen, because some dumb kid didn't know what a running engine does to bodies when you get close to them.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3094 times:
Wikipedia is extremely good for technical subjects, as frankly who would want to mess with the topic of fluidic thrust vectoring, to name an obscure one. Even when people do mess with it, the origional authors get a notice so they can check it and remove/refine it if it is inaccurate. Repeat nonsense posting offenders get banned. The only thing I would not trust wiki for is relatively recent history, religious subjects, and political subjects. In those areas there are too many opinions around the world to realistically expect a balanced portrayal on a page anyone can edit.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3070 times:
Wiki is amazing tbh.
I've learnt so much from there, about many different topics. Yes, you still need textbooks to go into great detail, but if you just want to learn a little to medium amount about a subject it can't be beaten.
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 7611 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2934 times:
Until I was 15 when most of my attention shifted to girls, I was always asking a ton of things to my professors, oftentimes ending in them telling me to wait till I were in college, or just shut up. Had wikipedia been around at that time, my life might have turned quite differently.
I sometimes have to force myself to stop reading after hours on it.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
richm From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 803 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2831 times:
When talking about credibility, imo it's not as bad as what many think. If you write something which is a load of nonsense, someone will remove it. When I first started editing articles on Wikipedia a few years ago, I got frustrated to find that my submissions were often removed within hours, all because I didn't include references. So basically, if something can't be proven, it's likely that it will get removed from Wikipedia. With that in mind, I think Wikipedia deserves more credibility on the whole.
Quote: I feel like when I get past one paragraph, I go on a tangeant trying to figure out what some of the words mean
I know what you mean, I've often thought that too. Wikipedia doesn't always excel when it comes to providing good educational material. Information is of no use to anyone if people can't make sense of it. It seems that many editors don't really give this basic concept much thought. Imo many articles should start at a foundation level before they go on to explaining complex issues. Some people say that you need a PhD just to be able to make sense of many of the articles on there. :P