Thomas Dalton wrote:
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.
Yes, at its best, Wikipedia is better referenced. But the rest of the
Wikipedia promotional comparison does not follow.
Children's textbooks are not without referencing because evil
educationalists want to suppress other views, thus giving wikipedia a
new mission of liberating oppression. Children's textbooks are basic,
because that's where Children start. There are libraries - free to
Children - full of well referenced books.
There are certainly some false dichotomies flying around here - utterly
typical of discussions of education, I might say. Reference works (such
as WP) are not meant to displace textbooks, anyway. Critical skills run
in parallel to straight learning: sometimes they supplement learning,
and at other times (IMX) they can get in the way (but that is more with
adult learners). Providing references on a per-fact basis (as WP's
online style encourages) is not providing a bibliography of full scope.
And so on.
Charles