Discussion on:

University professor says Wikipedia fosters climate of blind trust

Though I would not dismiss Wikipedia in its entirety, some of Professor Lichtenstein?s arguments does make sense. Would you rely on the information in a Wikipedia article, or use it simply as a means to get an initial understanding? Even if you use it as a starting point, do you get tempted not to look further?

...especially in my areas of 'obsession' (Asperger's Syndrome: obsessiveness), I do see it's value.

What is it that constitutes an 'expert'?

Who is more of an expert on Asperger's Syndrome; the one who has it, or the one who has a psych degree who has studied it?

Let us all not forget that many hobbiests become experts in their own rights.

How many of us do not have any sort of degree in IT but have expertese?

Is Bill Gates an expert in Business? He has no degree to say so, but I'd dare say he is a master businessman.

Let's not forget that traditional news sources were quick to dismiss bloggers until they spanked senior editor and news man Dan Rather, and good.

Wikipedia has what has been called "the wisdom of the market". While I would not rely on it 100%, it is usually accurate enough to serve a useful role.

But that's just my non-expert opionion.

I agree with your assessment. Just like anything else, one has to understand the source of the information and take it at face value.

I consider the WiKi experience to be that of a initial clearing house as it typically has several links to more in-depth information.

The nature of Wiki is to hold the commonly accepted version of things in most areas.

What is commonly accepted isn't always true.

I often use Wiki as a starting point, then do more detailled searches.

James

much of it is quite good and accurate.

It only gets particularly murky in areas of politics and religion (big suprise there, eh?)

... that people who are considered to be experts on a subject can, like anyone else, update Wikipedia entries, too. Should academics be at their keyboards writing papers that trash Wikipedia? Or would their typing time be better spent updating Wikipedia with more correct information instead? Personally, I think academics should be storming Wikipedia en masse and making it most accurate and complete body of knowledge that humanity has ever created, but maybe that's just me.

Because of its current nature, I am in favor of the idea that Wikipedia should not be allowed as a credible source either in academia or journalism. It is, as others have mentioned, simply a good place to get a subject overview or a start in research.

I agree with M Kassner -- "Well Said".
As the article suggests/asks, I use it as a starting point but am careful not to read too much into it.

....unless I was specifically speaking to the culturally accepted perspective of a given topic, or using it as some other sort of anecdotal example.

Whenever I've used Wikipedia to get info, it has only been the 'starting off' point with the hopes of being directed elsewhere.

While I feel as though the professor may have been a little over dramatic in his approach, I agree with him that students shouldn't trust the content at face value. Think about it this way: Had Wikipedia existed in the year 1491, it would have no doubt contained an article about how sailing too far into the ocean would result in you falling off the planet...edited & reviewed by several experts in navigation and sailing, no less.

There's an interesting article on the Flat Earth myth on wikipedia...

...too bad I can't trust it! :P

I read it on the Internet! They can't print anything on the Internet that's not true! Didn't you know that?

never heard that particular take on the Flat Earth before.

that's how its designed to be used.
Oh, and if you edit the WIKI, be kind and post a reference link, this is also its validity.
No need to quote the wiki itself in any of your scholarly papers.
Teacher is just feeling robbed after hearing of more education funds being cut out of the upcoming ferderal budget

I lost faith in Wikipedia when I compared the German and the English versions of the start of the Vietnam War. Not only did they differ from each other, both differed from the Mombasa Times report I read as the war was starting. Wikipedia was in fact giving two versions of the myths invented to blame the U.S. after U.S. involvement started. Perhaps it's been corrected since, or perhaps it's even been harmonized so the same untrue myth comes up in both versions.

I would be surprised if many members of TR accepted Wikipedia at face value. I've found it surprisingly accurate and concise at times - usually when the article WAS written by an expert in the field.

Overall, however, I've come to view anything I see published on the internet as possibly tainted. When I'm using the internet for research, I will often find sites that are interpreting material on other sites - or plagiarizing it outright. As others have mentioned, politics, religion and, IMHO, medicine are all research topics of which to be particularly wary. Part of the problem is the reliance of some of the authors on the Internet as their source for validation.

Wikipedia can be a good starting point, but I would not want to stake my life on something based solely on a wikipedia article.

Do you blindly trust what you see on television? Or what you read in papers? Do you inconditionnaly trust the "experts" who are called to accept or reject you insurrance claims?

Even tought I would not trust wikipedia (just as I wouldn't trust any other single source of information) without double checking, imho, the more public a source of information is, the less likely it is to be biased for whatever reason (money, power, fame...).

And as everybody said,it's a damn good place to start your search.

Students today lack the research skills many 30+ folks learned in the days of library card catalogs. Students have difficulty using search engines because they tend to form their query in the form of a question instead of keywords. When given research projects, students have to be taught search techniques. When they don't know any better, Wikipedia is just like the encyclopedias of old. It has great general information but will never be the one-stop source for research. The paper they write has no chance of passing.

(My view of student behavior comes from my best friend, a high school science teacher.)

that the educational industry fosters blind trust.

Once, students were required to regurgitate facts and figures, then provide their own interpretations of and conclusions in relationship to same.

The classroom instructor now passes on that deadly dull 'learn those facts and figures' routine, delivers the requisite interpretations of and acceptable conclusions in relationship to nebulous facts and figures.

Student regurgitates requisite interpretations and conclusions.
Student aces class.

Student learns only a pre-determined acceptable, not how to actually use his/her mind to interpret, conclude, sort for him/herself.

I have seen and been on the receiving end of exactly this far too many times. Were I very much younger, I wouldn't know that things have ever been any other way.

edit: clarification

When I first started college a friend of mine told me I just needed to learn how to "play the game" if I wanted to get high grades. Learn what the professor wants, spit it back out the way they want to see it, and walk away with your grade. I never did give in to that ideology.

that the education industry is providing exactly what the government wants and is willing to fund.

Sheep are easy to control. Mavericks are not.

Training students to be drones, to repeat the beliefs, "facts" and ideologies of the government, makes for a more governable, pacified populace.

The ignorant are easily manipulated and controlled. Truly educated people, people who have been taught to think are more likely to see the greed, narcissism and self-interest that is actually motivating the politicians in power and the heads of most of the big corporations.

It's much, much easier and cheaper to set a minimal education standard - rote learning and predigested "facts" and skills - than to foster the intellectual creativity and social awareness that I believe are the hallmark of a well-educated person.

If the general populace were to have the ability to think, analyze and understand what the leaders of the country and the "captains of industry" were actually doing, I believe we would see a period of civil unrest that would eclipse the American Civil War. Not necessarily bloodshed and violence, but the social and cultural change would be staggering and the recipients of the public ire would be those who are currently in control of industry and the nation's policies.

It's much easier and far more comfortable for those who hold the purse-strings to keep the majority ignorant.

IMNSHO and YMMV of course. All opinions contained herein are the sole intellectual property of nobody in particular. This post is not certified for use in applications or control systems used in Aerospace, Nuclear Power or medical applications. Void where prohibited, taxed or regulated. No warranty of usability or merchantability is made, except in those states that prohibit such non-warranty. This post is not suitable for children under the age of 6. Choking hazard warning: May, or may not, contain small parts of speech, adjectives, adverbs, nouns, prepositions or participles. This post was written in a household containing nuts, wheat, meat and other food substances. This product contains no nutritional value whatsoever.

...no doubt rolls in his grave due to the state of education in the country (or lack thereof).

Critical thinking, logic, basic life skills....SWOOSH down the commode.

You have a better chance of learning urban combat skills in classrooms (Chicago had the 24th public school student killed violently last night since the start of the school year...but why spend money addressing that issue when we can waste millions on an Olympic bid that hopefully will be unsuccessful...woo hoo) than you do how to generate thoughts and opinions based on interpretation of information.

.

I probably shouldn't post when I'm stressed, frustrated, depressed and bitter. I get a little too flippant.

[edited to correct typos]

perhaps I was the one who was too flippant with my Bingo! post. I meant only to note that I agree with you wholeheartedly and am rather delighted to see that I am not the only one who thinks this way.

My apologies if I offended in any way.

Professors will argue against anyone without a degree hanging on the wall as being credible, only in a desparate attempt to validate their own degrees.

I have known MANY professors that only knew what the books told them, so what happens when they read the wrong book? Many have never left the shelter of campus life and are feeding back the crap they were fed.

The other side is the abuse of people with agendas.

I looked up Iraq war and found this nice quote:

"In a January 2003 CBS poll,
64% of Americans approved of military action against Iraq.
63% wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than going to war with Iraq, and
62% believed the threat of terror would increase if war was waged with Iraq.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

um, math not a requirement anymore?

The two subjects that have fanatical followers.

can't talk about technology because it changes so fast and you have your os wars fed by fud all the time.

cars? look at all the people that are loyal to a brand without a reason?

do we have to break it down to the point of saying "It is ok as long as it is a topic no one cares about"?

for use as sources in research papers. Just like encyclopedia's were not allowed. If you wanted to use wikipedia as a start that is fine but don't cite it as a source.

There were many reasons, the least of which is that anyone can post anything. Aside from that Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia. If memory serves, I was not allowed to use an Encyclopedia as a source past middle school. Why the heck would I allow the online version in College?

I did not realise that anyone took Wikipedia as a
defnite source of fact based knowledge. The simple
fact that any idiot on-line can edit the contents
should be enough to alert even the most gullible of
fact finders. Good luck in your searches?.

Wikipedia is deliberately lying to everybody.These are deliberate lies meant to throw humanity off track.Wikipedia has to be stopped NOW!However,I do not think that it will be easy to stop Wikipedia.I see this as terrorist and terrorist is suicide bombers.Perhaps you are not the first to study Wikipedia.

Maybe there's a web site already up where you could add this knowledge, and others could expand on it and contribute what they know about it.

just earned you 2 "you know whats" !!

BALTHOR smart.

Seriously though, I kind of enjoy Balthor's take on life. It helps me feel not quite so abnormal...

so it can sometimes be a treat to find a few posts by Balthor..especially when its been a cr@p day

I really wish the "experts" who apparently feel so threatened by Wikipedia would sit down and think about what they're saying for once.

Let's look at a slightly altered version of Professor Lichtenstein's quote about brain surgery:
"If you had to have brain surgery would you prefer someone who has been through medical school, trained and researched in the field, or the student next to you who has read The Encyclopedia Britannica? "
Wikipedia has never tried to pass itself off as a replacement for a full Education, nor to my knowledge has the Britannica or any other Encyclopedia. Trying to frame the discussion in such a manner is simply intellectual dishonesty on Professor Lichtenstein's part.


The real question here is how does the information in Wikipedia compare to the information available in other, more traditional Encyclopedias? Since when have Encyclopedias been considered an acceptable primary source for research?

Wikipedia is a good place to get basic information about a wide variety of subjects, and also provides links to cited sources which can be checked for accuracy, but it will not in-and-of-itself make you a brain surgeon, an astronaut or a Chinese acrobat.

(Edit for correcting typos)

The mere fact that "information" is easily and quickly available, without the need to seek out authoritative sources, coupled with the tendency of far too many to do no more than seems necessary, leads to a great deal of dis-information and mis-information being accepted as factually correct.

No good can come of this.

...is that thanks to the internet, I can login right now to a few searchable databases, and instantly have access to numerous scholarly peer-reviewed journals/articles/books, etc in order to conduct fairly solid research. What took me days to research as an undergrad literally takes me hours now as a grad student.

I think the professor is pointing the finger at the wrong culprit. Yeah, Wikipedia may or may not be a good source...but why are the students going their in droves in the first place?

Address that question, and you don't need to worry about Wikipedia as an authoritative source for research anymore than you do urbandictionary.com as an authoritative source for proper English verbiage.

That's my take on it, at least.

I find UrbanDictionary a very useful tool. It's sometimes the ONLY way I can understand what the kids who work for us as temps are talking about.

Using hip slang is fine for private conversations. For work purposes, though, everyone needs to employ a commonly understood language.

If the kids don't like that, TS.

it's the owner's daughter...

Quite frankly, I'd tell the Pope to speak English were he to address me in German, Italian or Latin.

That one claims a special position or relationship to one in a special position bestows no privilege to demand that others conform to their wishes.

Sooner or later the owner's daughter will need to learn that the world does not and will not speak her jargon.

But, you are absolutely right.

Setting issues of calcification, ossification, dementia, etal. aside (those are best left for a Friday Yuk), age brings with it both the understanding that the ability of others to affect ones life is generally much lower than once believed, that the long term impact of any such effects are likewise diminshed, and the courage to to take what, at least appear to be be, greater risks.

In short, one eventually reaches the point where one can say "this is my opinion," or "these are the facts," without hesitiation for fear of reprisal.

Life is game from which no one gets out alive.

at the age of 52, I doubt it's going to get there.

There is a correlation between the adversities that one has weathered and ones ability to not merely accept risk, but to embrace it.

Absent a crystal ball or time machine, what life will throw at us in the future, and when, cannot be foretold.

You may find yourself to be a most changed person within a very short span of time.

I thought at length about what you said, but refrained.

Deepsand has stepped in and, I think, said precisely what needed be said.