[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

[Carcharoth]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/3/28 doc <doc.wikipedia at 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.

Though to take the other tack for a minute, as a general purpose
encyclopedia (with niches of speciality and depth), Wikipedia doesn't
use all the diversity of sources for most topics. There is still
editorial discretion over how to present a particular article or
topic, and that is where bias can still be present, through the
omission of sources. There is little point someone (child or adult)
going "Wow! 20 different sources used and listed in this article", if
the article fails to use several of the most reliable and
authoritative sources on a topic. And if a topic has thousands of
sources, Wikipedia, even if it uses 100 sources, can't claim to be
distilling the diversity of the thousands of sources (though hopefully
it would point to books that do approach that level of detail).

i.e. learn from using Wikipedia that multiple sources and judging
their reliability are essential, but don't presume any particular
Wikipedia article (even if featured) is comprehensive in terms of
sources. Even the best featured article is still just a starting point
(albeit usually a very good one).

Carcharoth