[Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>   
>> Anthony wrote:
>>     
>>> One would think from these discussions you might have learned that
>>> Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources
>> What is accomplished by trying to label encyclopedias as tertiary
>> sources?  They probably are, but so what?
>>     
> That's why they generally shouldn't be used, even at a high school
> level.  Encyclopedias are summaries of information.  At a high school
> level, most students should be making their own summaries.
> Furthermore, every step you take on the [[telephone game]] of
> information you lose reliability.
>   
/[snip]/
> But you have
> to decide what to include and what to leave out, and that choice is
> determined by what you believe to be most relevant to the truth
> (assuming you're intellectually honest, anyway).
>   
At the high school level what may be acceptable when the students start 
may not be acceptable when they graduate.  They should be learning how 
to think critically, and looking beyond what the teacher and the 
textbook have to say. For some teachers that is difficult to accept when 
they want students to conform.


>>> My wife is a high school teacher, but she doesn't really pay more
>>> attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry for their
>>> homework".  You'd think as a Calculus teacher she wouldn't run into
>>> that very often, but actually it happens all the time.
>>>       
>> I hope that she makes sure that they give Wikipedia proper credit. It
>> seems like a great teaching moment for her.
>>     
> I don't know about a great teaching moment, but she warns them that
> plagiarism is against school policy and that if they get caught again
> she's going to report them to the administration.
>
> If they gave Wikipedia credit, then instead of a plagiarism warning
> they'd just get a zero :).  These particular assignments are not
> supposed to be copied at all.  I guess I should point out at this
> point that this is an online high school.
>   

Much depends here on the sort of students that are enrolled in that high 
school. A school for high achievers should be fairly intolerant of this 
kind of copying.  Naturally, the operating parameters need to be 
understood from the beginning.  In a program for dysfunctional kids who 
are never likely to become scholars any kind of outside source may be 
the most that you can expect.

>> More interesting for us
>> would be why these kids use Wikipedia.  Are the authorized proprietary
>> textbooks that bad?
>>     
> No, kids just understand that they're going to get caught if they
> plagiarize from their textbooks.  What they don't realize is that the
> "NPOV" language of Wikipedia tends to be glaringly obvious, even when
> you're talking about calculus.
>   

I suppose that another strategy would be to subject them to a quiz based 
on the very material they lifted from Wikipedia ... without a copy of 
the article in front of them. O:-)

> I guess in that sense it is a teaching moment - one about honesty.
> Still don't know about a great one.  I would think by high school kids
> have already learned whether or not they're capable of getting away
> with deceit - but maybe not, not all teachers (or parents) are as
> attentive as my wife.
>   

Getting away with deceit is a learned process, often applied defensively.
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> I think that education systems are thoroughly shook
>> up about the internet.
>>     
>
> Definitely agreed, although I think this has gotten much better over
> the past decade or so.
>   

Optimist!

>> To take Wikipedia "as a serious
>> source of information" will take time, and depend less on what we do
>> than on what they do.
>>     
>
> I honestly can't see it ever happening.  Not unless Wikipedia abandons
> "anyone can edit", anyway.
>   

"Anyone can edit" can work ... if it's accompanied by a viable article 
evaluation system.  That means more than just checking for vandalism.  I 
would very much support some kind of numerical system for this where the 
published rating would average all the ratings made by any individual 
who cared to do so..
> "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write
> anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the
> best possible information." - I think that quote from The Office
> pretty much sums it up.  I've heard Wikipedians make similar
> statements with a perfectly straight face, and I don't think they,
> unlike the writers of The Office, were doing so with tongue-in-cheek.
>   

I've never read The Office, but I'm experienced enough to be wary of the 
superlatives of wild-eyed enthusiasts.

Ec