Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Weird News Stories => Topic started by: CheezeFlixz on June 22, 2008, 09:48:39 AM



Title: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: CheezeFlixz on June 22, 2008, 09:48:39 AM
http://news.scotsman.com/education/Falling-exam--passes-blamed.4209408.jp (http://news.scotsman.com/education/Falling-exam--passes-blamed.4209408.jp)


Why I am just SHOCKED that Wiki would be so wrong! Actually, I'm not it also cracks me up when people use wiki as gospel. It's great for quick info that is often dubious at best, so I wouldn't base a argument or a testing answer on it. 


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Patient7 on June 22, 2008, 09:56:15 AM
Of course Wikipedia has inaccuracies!  It has about three people actually working for it!  All the information comes from regular people!  Apparantly, regular stupid people.


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Jack on June 22, 2008, 10:04:28 AM
We used to have these things called "text books" for that sort of thing.  You got them right at school.


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: CheezeFlixz on June 22, 2008, 10:14:21 AM
Yea, when I was a kid they had those things called "World Book" which some guy needing a shave sold door to door.

I told my kid when working on reports or what ever, never trust Wiki unless you want a failing grade. Many kids thinks "Well, it's on Wiki it's got to be true."


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: asimpson2006 on June 23, 2008, 07:55:14 AM
Wiki IMO is about as trustful as the US government at times.  If I ever talk about (not in a report, but a conversation) something I read on wiki I usually start with from a source that I don't trust, blah blah blah.  There are some useful things on Wiki and some of it is truthful but a majority of it is not trustworthy.  If I can confirm something that was written on Wiki in three other Trustworthy websites or trustworthy books or articles then I can saw it's true but I wouldn't use it for a source.


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Trevor on June 24, 2008, 05:17:36 AM
Yea, when I was a kid they had those things called "World Book" which some guy needing a shave sold door to door.

 :teddyr: Funny you should mention those things called encyclopaedias, Cheeze: I still have mine. They're way more reliable than WonkyPedia. :lookingup:



Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: AndyC on June 24, 2008, 06:42:15 AM
I used to have a huge set of Funk & Wagnalls, but it gradually became useful only as a pre-1979 historical reference.

And now, I await Menard's comment about my huge set of Funk & Wagnalls  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Raffine on June 24, 2008, 11:13:49 AM
Much more reliable is Wikiality. For instance: their highly informative page on elephants:

http://www.wikiality.com/Elephant (http://www.wikiality.com/Elephant)



Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Newt on June 25, 2008, 08:18:59 AM
Researching is a lost art.  One of a long and honourable list, unfortunately.

People rely on 'sources' like Wiki because of the appeal of one-stop-shopping. The trend toward blindly accepting and quoting the first article one encounters frankly scares me.  Think people!

Spotting leads in articles and chasing down authoritative or primary sources takes time, effort and some skill.  When I was a kid encyclopedias were generally considered a starting point, not the be-all-and-end-all source; at least once one was past grade 4 or so.


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on June 26, 2008, 05:45:27 PM
Wikipedia is a horrible mess run by crazy admins.  Some of the wikipedia stories on Encyclopedia Dramatica are hilarious and sad at the same time.  The war over whose picture of their own penis gets to be in the wiki article is proof enough the servers should be nuked from orbit.


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Saucerman on June 26, 2008, 06:10:17 PM
Heh, I've had three professors announce on the first day of class, "If you use Wikipedia as a source in this class, you will probably fail the class." Unfortunately, only the history major program at my college (I'm a history major) has specific classes, which are a requirement for anyone in the major, on research and interpretation.  I think every major should require such classes. 


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: indianasmith on June 26, 2008, 11:27:10 PM
I know the judges at National History Day competition STRONGLY discourage the use of Wikepedia as a source.  I use it for portraits and photographs of famous people sometimes.


Title: Re: Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'
Post by: Sister Grace on June 27, 2008, 06:55:58 AM
Heh, I've had three professors announce on the first day of class, "If you use Wikipedia as a source in this class, you will probably fail the class." Unfortunately, only the history major program at my college (I'm a history major) has specific classes, which are a requirement for anyone in the major, on research and interpretation.  I think every major should require such classes. 

I'm in the middle of American History and on the first day of class when my professor was briefly highlighting the syllabus, one of the first things he told us was never to use Wiki and if we did he would automatically deduct points. Like he said, when you're doing a research paper you should actually do some research...