tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post117011445143907844..comments2024-03-28T18:57:15.124-06:00Comments on Wash Park Prophet: Wikipedia Rules!Andrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-61281649396898141322008-05-02T09:43:00.000-06:002008-05-02T09:43:00.000-06:00@ Andrew Given that most students are indeed lazy...@ Andrew Given that most students are indeed lazy and oblivious, how does wikipedia bring bias/accuracy issues into the open? I've yet to see any disclaimer near the title of any article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1170197439860959552007-01-30T15:50:00.000-07:002007-01-30T15:50:00.000-07:00I don't know about that. The bias and reliability...I don't know about that. The bias and reliability issues in Wikipedia are much more transparent than they are in other sources. You can look at the history of edits and discussion about meta issues with a single click from any page and experienced users of Wikipedia frequently do so.<BR/><BR/>Also, knowing that it doesn't have the imprompture of a publisher's authority bespeaks a caution rarely taken with conventional published sources.<BR/><BR/>Students have always been lazy and oblivious to bias and accuracy issues. Wikipedia at least brings those issues into the open as a routine thing to consider.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1170179051419180512007-01-30T10:44:00.000-07:002007-01-30T10:44:00.000-07:00Librarians invest a great deal of time in selectin...Librarians invest a great deal of time in selecting authorative materials. We invest a great deal of time in teaching people how to evaluate information. I agree that Wikipedia has value--for example, when the program Cash Cab appeared on television, the only article I could find about it was on Wikipedia. I've edited articles on Wikipedia (and added an article). I think wikis are amazing tools for collaboration. But we have a generation of students who believe that everything should be available full-text online for free. That's what Wikipedia provides, so that's what they expect. Then when they encounter a professor who indicates that they need to do research outside of websites, they're lost. They are too trusting of what they read. They don't realize the need to use more than one source, to evaluate bias and reliability. So to me, the inroads Wikipedia makes into everyone's everyday life are depressing because for many people, this frequently inaccurate source of information will be the only source they bother checking. i.e., "I read it in Wikipedia, so it must be true."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1170141290101441462007-01-30T00:14:00.000-07:002007-01-30T00:14:00.000-07:00Care to explain the depressing part of this, Jude?...Care to explain the depressing part of this, Jude? As an amateur researcher, I find it rather exhilarating.Off Colfaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159732830654414173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1170122326533714102007-01-29T18:58:00.000-07:002007-01-29T18:58:00.000-07:00As a librarian, I find this truly depressing news....As a librarian, I find this truly depressing news.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com