This is unique strategic action-runner about Vikings!4.04 / 5.00 10,652 Views
The official sequel to Money Movers3.84 / 5.00 1,642 Views
A mini visual novel about a mysterious girl. Features 4 endings.3.74 / 5.00 3,146 Views
It always bothered me in my high-school career that teachers more often than not would tell us not to use Wikipedia becuase it's un credited, and not a good source of information.
Now understandably there are pages with wonky facts that may or may not be true. 9/10 times they are asking us to look up historical information and Wikipedia is extremely monitored and scrutinized so when a page is edited, a flag pops up and that page is reviewed by sevral mods. So if someone changes a page and puts all sorts of silly crap on there, it will be reverted and fixed within a few hours normally. So most of the time if we are looking up stuff about and related to WW2? We can find accurate, information in great abundance.
Now I called out one or two of my history teachers when they told us not to, and more or less this conversation ensued.
Teacher: "Don't use wikipedia for your facts"
Me: "Why not? It's accurate information"
Teacher: "Don't question me, I said don't use it, and it's not a credible source for information, anyone can edit it!"
Me" Really? Your right! However, it's extremely moderated, and if I were to put silly untrue facts all over the place, those pages would within an hours time be fixed, and I would be banned."
Teacher: "you don't really know that, I don't want any of you using it, and I will be fact checking."
Me: "In other words, you don't want us to use it becuase it's easy, effective, and accurate, you can even check it with our books, you may even learn something new"
At this point, it became a back and forth between me and her and she was using circular logic about something she did not use, nor fully understand. I ended up getting the information that she dislikes it becuase it can't be trusted in her eyes, and she didn't have this kinda luxury when she was our age. so she wanted us to go to the library and find books about the information. (I'm not unwilling to do that sometimes, but when it's done just becuase they hate the internet, it's not ok in my eyes)
At 8/18/11 04:18 PM, fuzzum111 wrote: Teacher: "Don't use wikipedia for your facts"
Me: "Why not? It's accurate information"
Only about 80% is accurate.
At 8/18/11 04:18 PM, fuzzum111 wrote: it's un credited
What? There's citations on almost every article. I use wikipedia to get general information and then check out the sources listed at the bottom of the article usually. Or did you mean that the author of the Wikipedia page isn't credited?
At 8/18/11 04:22 PM, robotman5 wrote: they don't seem to care anymore
Maybe I just had a few shitty-ish teachers, but half the time I had to argue with them just to let us use the internet for anything. Some of my teachers were a little more realistic, and would tell us to use -other- websites and just not Wikipedia so, that was nice.
My teachers were not all bad, I learned a whole bunch from all of my classes. However some of them had this idea the internet was nothing more than a giant ball of viruses that I could spread as if they were infecting students
I hate teacher who are like that. For some reason it really pisses me of when I hear about teachers who don't want their students to use wikipedia.
And the argument "Anyone can edit it" is bullshit. Anyone with a bit of html/css knowledge, can make a website, make it look legit and put a bunch of bullshit information on there.
I kind of agree with her but mostly not since most stuff you could find in books could have simply been added to the article with someone who has the book in possession. That and aside from mods they have at least 30+ active bots that moderate and do various things on the site. One even signs for you if you forget to put your signature on a talk page.
Request Reviews // #9 Reviewer // #3 Audio Reviewer
They don't want you to use Wikipedia because you can't cite it as a source. The information on Wikipedia is gathered from all sorts of websites. If you really are that lazy not to do the research on a paper, then just use Wikipedia and cite the sources used to make the article.
At 8/18/11 04:36 PM, BumFodder wrote: Its accurate, but not completely reliable. If you were to be making something formal you wouldnt really want to use it.
This is true but most of the time they don't necessarily want overly formal papers, I just had bum-fuck teachers XD
At 8/18/11 04:24 PM, fuzzum111 wrote: However some of them had this idea the internet was nothing more than a giant ball of viruses that I could spread as if they were infecting students
They're the really old ones that you had in their last year before retirement, right?
At 8/18/11 04:18 PM, fuzzum111 wrote: So if someone changes a page and puts all sorts of silly crap on there, it will be reverted and fixed within a few hours normally. So most of the time if we are looking up stuff about and related to WW2? We can find accurate, information in great abundance.
Actually I remember seeing "banana firing monkey butts (on load from the USA)" to be a weapon used by the Allies in a Wikipedia list for a long time.
I didn't put it there, just saw it for a couple of weeks.
Look at this edit, and I swear, it wasn't me. It's been like that for days by the way.
"Maybe thats why shes in film school. She wants to be an Artistic Autistic." -Viper50
"Everything else you said was mostly garbage and opinionated." -DangerousGirl
Just use it. They don't have spyware on your computer, plus, they don't even know you used it.
the only thing I found strange on wikipedia is when someone put on top of the info page of the element gold "I like cheese"
thats about it
Death cures a fool so fucking kill me already
Although Wikipedia is usually accurate, it occasionally isn't not because of intentionally inaccurate information, but because misinformation sometimes passes by unnoticed. Wikipedia doesn't have a council of experts on every subject and although their moderation is generally excellent, it's better to be safe than sorry. It's not that difficult to find credible sources or to use online peer reviewed databases like bpl.org. Teachers don't have the time to be cross referencing every fact you proffer.
Using it as a mean of getting a general understanding of a subject or using it to find other sources is totally acceptable, though.
At 8/18/11 04:25 PM, tally1989 wrote: And the argument "Anyone can edit it" is bullshit. Anyone with a bit of html/css knowledge, can make a website, make it look legit and put a bunch of bullshit information on there.
Those kinds of websites aren't generally accepted as sources, either. Discerning which sites are difficult and which aren't is a skill that everyone should have.
What I find funny, is that webpages can be made by anyone. There's nothing to make the other pages more accurate than Wikipedia
Oh Yes Indeed.
At 8/18/11 05:02 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Those kinds of websites aren't generally accepted as sources, either. Discerning which sites are difficult and which aren't is a skill that everyone should have.
"Discerning which sites are credible* and which aren't"
The argument I always use is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it's heavily moderated. Anyone can write a book to, and publish it themselves. Also, anybody can make a "factual" website, and get it online even easier, yet teachers think pages with .gif backgrounds and uncited work are more reliable.
Wikipedia is great as long as the pages you're using have credible sources and references at the bottom. if pages don't have a lot then that page is probably bullshit. But most of em have them in abundance so it's no problem.
Can't you just google+ a source other than wikipedia?
At 8/18/11 04:25 PM, GoodFish wrote: "The circle of elders has decided these berries are unfit to be eaten."
"But Tribal Leader Jehuz, I have eaten these berries and I am fine! They were tasty!"
"The berries are poisonous and you are lucky to be alive."
This man makes an excellent point. I concur.
At 8/18/11 05:13 PM, FigishPig3000 wrote: Also, anybody can make a "factual" website, and get it online even easier, yet teachers think pages with .gif backgrounds and uncited work are more reliable.
I haven't had teachers that allow those kinds of sources since middle school. I'm surprised that yours (and others who have mentioned it in this thread) do.
At 8/18/11 05:15 PM, CharltonChinchilla wrote: Wikipedia is great as long as the pages you're using have credible sources and references at the bottom. if pages don't have a lot then that page is probably bullshit. But most of em have them in abundance so it's no problem.
Which raises the question: why not just use those sources directly? By using those sources instead, you get more information and you get the context in which the original authors intended that information to be.
At 8/18/11 04:19 PM, MaartenC wrote:At 8/18/11 04:18 PM, fuzzum111 wrote: Teacher: "Don't use wikipedia for your facts"Only about 80% is accurate.
Me: "Why not? It's accurate information"
Only about 0% of you is accurate.
I would think circumventing that rule is easy, the way some portions of any article will have a superscript number in the middle of it, and that clicking the number leads you to a more teacher-accepted source.