2009/3/28 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Carcharoth wrote:
Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some background reading and research, and the history presented in those other sources is different to what you are teaching us".
i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry point into reading about the topic.
Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources sections in the textbook the school is commending.
The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden.
Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being taught how to judge their reliability.