MajorMajorMajor said:
I will laugh, then realize I have no idea what was said in your paper, then I will look to wiki for the basics.
Nickname should get the gist of what’s going on in it. Everyone else, though, is *edited*ed lol
Our only criticism during the mid-project presentation was that we needed to dumb things down for the audience… and they were all engineers 
NuRayZ said:
MasterP said:
That was a rhetorical question because the information I was asking for, IE his figures were in the legislation, wasn’t possible to locate because they weren’t actually in the bill. It’s not really fair to penalize Wiki for not publishing false information lol
i thought we eventually found the figures? or am i just retarded?
Nickname was gracious/bored enough to go find it. The meaning behind that post was they weren’t the figures you said they were and thus would be impossible to locate. There was no question that figures were there 
Bitey said:
You’re not bursting my bubble, I know wiki has been around for a while, 9 years is not that long though… Anyways as I have said like a million times over in this thread, wiki is fine for a checking source, I just don’t think it should be the end all be all when you are researching…. Basically this : “I understand what their concerns are. There’s no question that [on Wikipedia and similar sites] some things are great and some things are questionable. Some of the pages could be by eighth graders,” he said. “But to simply say ‘don’t use that one’ might take students in the wrong direction from the perspective of information literacy.”
Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”
Since you clearly missed it. Everything else was just trolling you and now I am fat thanks to all the food, thanks…
I missed nothing, what you’re quoting is someone trying to explain why it’s good to teach students to question sources of information that contain accurate information just because it’s on the internet and instead of taking that accurate information and acting on it, to intentionally search for information that contradicts it.
And what does he mean by “Wikipedia and similar sites”? Similar “untrustworthy” sites such as the IEEE journal archive? Britanica Online? Dictionary.com? Conference proceedings? There are VERY few thorough online reference sources and fewer still that are actually free. It’s that free and open part that’s the real deal killer for librarians like the one you keep quoting. School librarians, since day one, have been against FREE reference material of any kind. To them, anything that didn’t cost money isn’t a credible source, regardless of how accurate the information is. Don’t take my word for it though, go look at any accuracy or comparative study done on Wikipedia and what you’ll find is that librarians, in every study they’re involved in, have given Wikipedia a bad review. You’ll also find that science-related reviewers generally find Wiki to be as accurate, if not moreso, than Britanica and w/e the big German one is and give it praise despite the noted layout issues some articles have.
So like I said earlier, the science-related majors generally love it and liberal arts hate it. It’s curious that you’d choose to quote from an article titled “A Stand Against Wikipedia” when there are more than enough neutral articles you could have quoted from. Are those the kind of articles you read when you were forming your opinion of Wikipedia or did you pick articles that weren’t completely negative?