This sounds a lot more sinister than Wikipedia intended.

This sounds a lot more sinister than Wikipedia intended.

@1 month ago with 3 notes
#wikipedia 
girlwithalessonplan:

world-shaker:

Just because I don’t support using Wikipedia as a source, doesn’t mean I don’t support using Wikipedia’s sources as a source.

I totally do this. And tell my students to do it.

girlwithalessonplan:

world-shaker:

Just because I don’t support using Wikipedia as a source, doesn’t mean I don’t support using Wikipedia’s sources as a source.

I totally do this. And tell my students to do it.

(via think4yourself)

@1 year ago with 427 notes
#wikipedia 
newyorker:

A Wikipedia cartoon of the day.

newyorker:

A Wikipedia cartoon of the day.

@2 years ago with 117 notes
#wikipedia 
theatlantic:

Is Wikipedia a World Cultural Repository?

Boasting more than 18 million entries in 279 languages, Wikipedia is arguably the largest store of human knowledge in the history of mankind. In its first decade, the digital encyclopedia has done more to challenge the way we think about the relationship between knowledge and the Internet than virtually any other website. But is this ubiquitous tree of knowledge as culturally sacred as the pyramids of Giza, the archaeological site of Troy, or the Native American mound cities of Cahokia?
Jimmy Wales, president of Wikipedia, thinks so. The digital encyclopedia will launch a petition this week to have the website listed on the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s world heritage lists. If accepted, Wikipedia would be afforded the international protection and preservation afforded to man made monuments and natural wonders.
Read more at The Atlantic

theatlantic:

Is Wikipedia a World Cultural Repository?

Boasting more than 18 million entries in 279 languages, Wikipedia is arguably the largest store of human knowledge in the history of mankind. In its first decade, the digital encyclopedia has done more to challenge the way we think about the relationship between knowledge and the Internet than virtually any other website. But is this ubiquitous tree of knowledge as culturally sacred as the pyramids of Giza, the archaeological site of Troy, or the Native American mound cities of Cahokia?
Jimmy Wales, president of Wikipedia, thinks so. The digital encyclopedia will launch a petition this week to have the website listed on the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s world heritage lists. If accepted, Wikipedia would be afforded the international protection and preservation afforded to man made monuments and natural wonders.

Read more at The Atlantic

@3 years ago with 68 notes
#wikipedia 

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica 

stfuconservatives:

I realize I’ve been citing Wikipedia a lot today, and that many frown upon using it as a valid resource. In fact, one smug reader once sent me a message that just said, “Pro tip: don’t quote Wiki :)”

Cool story bro. However, a fact-checking study found the same number of “vital errors” (described as “general misunderstandings of vital concepts”) in both Wikipedia and the venerable E.B. Wiki had more “minor errors” - but not that many.

Wikipedia is a valuable resource with very high standards for its content. Its accessibility (not to mention the price!) is an asset.

@3 years ago with 120 notes
#wikipedia #education 
@1 year ago with 46535 notes
#wikipedia 
quantumaniac:

Should Students Use Wikipedia?

Imagine the following fake conversation with a student:



Student: The instructor in another course said something about antimatter. What is antimatter? Where could I read about that?
Me: Well, you could go to Wikipedia. I am sure the page on anti-matter has a nice summary.
Student: Wikipedia??? Really? I thought all faculty hated Wikipedia. We were told it’s not a good thing to use.

Interesting. What do faculty think about students using Wikipedia? I have this unjustified feeling that it is a fairly straightforward source for basic information. Let me take a look at a few pages:
Antimatter.
Cave Diving.
The Momentum Principle.
Rhett Allain.
Looking at this sample, how accurate are these pages? The antimatter page seems to have a good summary of the topic with no obvious errors.
Apparently, there isn’t a Wikipedia page on the Momentum Principle. I thought that was odd. Well, the page on Impulse (physics) seems to be essentially the same as the momentum principle. It isn’t exactly what I would write, but it isn’t wrong either. Of course, I could probably say the same complaint about many of the physics textbooks. Finally, the Rhett Allain page is brief — but again not wrong.
Is Wikipedia evil? I don’t think so. Wikipedia is a tool, just like a lot of other things. It can be abused or it can be used for the good of mankind. Really, it isn’t much different than the information you would find in a textbook. Perhaps in the early days of Wikipedia, there was some unreliable stuff in there. However, I think that Wikipedia has matured enough that you won’t find too many seriously wrong things in there. You still find incorrect things in textbooks, so … not much different.
Then can students use Wikipedia? I think the problem some faculty have is that they don’t want students to use Wikipedia because it makes the assignment too easy. My feeling on this is that perhaps there should be a different assignment. Really, it depends on the learning goals. If the goal is to process and synthesize information, I think Wikipedia should be included in that process. If the goal is to learn how to find things in a library, then clearly Wikipedia shouldn’t be used.
Wikipedia is like a calculator in math classes. What if there was a math assignment where students were to do long division? Would it be wrong for the students to use a calculator? I think it depends. Why are they doing long division? In the past, long division was taught in schools so that students could divide numbers. But if the goal is to divide stuff, a calculator would make more sense.
There is another reason to teach long division: to give insight into how division works and what place value means. If this is the goal, the calculator actually doesn’t help. It just skips the whole processes, so it would be a bad-thing.
I need to make another post about long division. You know what is cool about long division? Doing long division with binary numbers.

quantumaniac:

Should Students Use Wikipedia?

  • Imagine the following fake conversation with a student:

Student: The instructor in another course said something about antimatter. What is antimatter? Where could I read about that?

Me: Well, you could go to Wikipedia. I am sure the page on anti-matter has a nice summary.

Student: Wikipedia??? Really? I thought all faculty hated Wikipedia. We were told it’s not a good thing to use.

Interesting. What do faculty think about students using Wikipedia? I have this unjustified feeling that it is a fairly straightforward source for basic information. Let me take a look at a few pages:

Looking at this sample, how accurate are these pages? The antimatter page seems to have a good summary of the topic with no obvious errors.

Apparently, there isn’t a Wikipedia page on the Momentum Principle. I thought that was odd. Well, the page on Impulse (physics) seems to be essentially the same as the momentum principle. It isn’t exactly what I would write, but it isn’t wrong either. Of course, I could probably say the same complaint about many of the physics textbooks. Finally, the Rhett Allain page is brief — but again not wrong.

Is Wikipedia evil? I don’t think so. Wikipedia is a tool, just like a lot of other things. It can be abused or it can be used for the good of mankind. Really, it isn’t much different than the information you would find in a textbook. Perhaps in the early days of Wikipedia, there was some unreliable stuff in there. However, I think that Wikipedia has matured enough that you won’t find too many seriously wrong things in there. You still find incorrect things in textbooks, so … not much different.

Then can students use Wikipedia? I think the problem some faculty have is that they don’t want students to use Wikipedia because it makes the assignment too easy. My feeling on this is that perhaps there should be a different assignment. Really, it depends on the learning goals. If the goal is to process and synthesize information, I think Wikipedia should be included in that process. If the goal is to learn how to find things in a library, then clearly Wikipedia shouldn’t be used.

Wikipedia is like a calculator in math classes. What if there was a math assignment where students were to do long division? Would it be wrong for the students to use a calculator? I think it depends. Why are they doing long division? In the past, long division was taught in schools so that students could divide numbers. But if the goal is to divide stuff, a calculator would make more sense.

There is another reason to teach long division: to give insight into how division works and what place value means. If this is the goal, the calculator actually doesn’t help. It just skips the whole processes, so it would be a bad-thing.

I need to make another post about long division. You know what is cool about long division? Doing long division with binary numbers.

(Source: Wired, via afro-dominicano)

@1 year ago with 592 notes
#wikipedia 

Wikipedia And The Death Of The Expert 

Wikipedia has three main advantages over its print ancestors:

  1. Wikipedia offers far richer, more comprehensive citations to source materials and bibliographies on- and offline, thereby providing a far better entry point for serious study;

  2. It is instantly responsive to new developments;

  3. Most significantly, users can “look under the hood” of Wikipedia in order to investigate the controversial or doubtful aspects of any given subject. I refer to the magical “History” button that appears in the top right corner of any Wikipedia page. Click this, and you will have instantaneous access to everything that has ever been written on the Wikipedia page in question. (In rare cases, i.e., during an edit war, a Wikipedia administrator may remove material, but this almost never happens.) The course of long and intricately involved disputations may thus come instantly to light. Of course, a load of dimwitted yelling and general codswallop may also emerge, but let’s face it, the same thing happens with any given stack of books in the library, only in more formal, less convenient packaging.

(Source: azspot)

@3 years ago with 30 notes
#wikipedia 
thedailywhat:

By The People of the Day: A Wonkette reader who recently visited the Louisiana State Capitol building in Baton Rouge made a rather disconcerting discovery: The biography of Louisiana’s first governor, William C. C. Claiborne — which is situated on a pedestal by his statue — is naught more than a two-page printout from Wikipedia, circa 2009.
[wonkette.]

thedailywhat:

By The People of the Day: A Wonkette reader who recently visited the Louisiana State Capitol building in Baton Rouge made a rather disconcerting discovery: The biography of Louisiana’s first governor, William C. C. Claiborne — which is situated on a pedestal by his statue — is naught more than a two-page printout from Wikipedia, circa 2009.

[wonkette.]

@3 years ago with 297 notes
#wikipedia 
thedailywhat:

Infographic of the Day: Information lover David McCandless put together this quick diagram illustrating the effectiveness of donation appeals on Wikipedia.
McCandless writes:

Like me, you might also have thought “Woah – Wikipedia-founder Jimmy Wales looks like Michael Bolton’s older, womanizing brother.” Okay maybe not that *exact* thought. But perhaps you wondered how such a dating site facial could possibly work as an appeal? As ever, the data tells a different story.

[infobeautiful.]

thedailywhat:

Infographic of the Day: Information lover David McCandless put together this quick diagram illustrating the effectiveness of donation appeals on Wikipedia.

McCandless writes:

Like me, you might also have thought “Woah – Wikipedia-founder Jimmy Wales looks like Michael Bolton’s older, womanizing brother.” Okay maybe not that *exact* thought. But perhaps you wondered how such a dating site facial could possibly work as an appeal? As ever, the data tells a different story.

[infobeautiful.]

(Source: thedailywhat)

@3 years ago with 142 notes
#wikipedia #charity #jimmy wales 
This sounds a lot more sinister than Wikipedia intended.
1 month ago
#wikipedia 
1 year ago
#wikipedia 
girlwithalessonplan:

world-shaker:

Just because I don’t support using Wikipedia as a source, doesn’t mean I don’t support using Wikipedia’s sources as a source.

I totally do this. And tell my students to do it.
1 year ago
#wikipedia 
quantumaniac:

Should Students Use Wikipedia?

Imagine the following fake conversation with a student:



Student: The instructor in another course said something about antimatter. What is antimatter? Where could I read about that?
Me: Well, you could go to Wikipedia. I am sure the page on anti-matter has a nice summary.
Student: Wikipedia??? Really? I thought all faculty hated Wikipedia. We were told it’s not a good thing to use.

Interesting. What do faculty think about students using Wikipedia? I have this unjustified feeling that it is a fairly straightforward source for basic information. Let me take a look at a few pages:
Antimatter.
Cave Diving.
The Momentum Principle.
Rhett Allain.
Looking at this sample, how accurate are these pages? The antimatter page seems to have a good summary of the topic with no obvious errors.
Apparently, there isn’t a Wikipedia page on the Momentum Principle. I thought that was odd. Well, the page on Impulse (physics) seems to be essentially the same as the momentum principle. It isn’t exactly what I would write, but it isn’t wrong either. Of course, I could probably say the same complaint about many of the physics textbooks. Finally, the Rhett Allain page is brief — but again not wrong.
Is Wikipedia evil? I don’t think so. Wikipedia is a tool, just like a lot of other things. It can be abused or it can be used for the good of mankind. Really, it isn’t much different than the information you would find in a textbook. Perhaps in the early days of Wikipedia, there was some unreliable stuff in there. However, I think that Wikipedia has matured enough that you won’t find too many seriously wrong things in there. You still find incorrect things in textbooks, so … not much different.
Then can students use Wikipedia? I think the problem some faculty have is that they don’t want students to use Wikipedia because it makes the assignment too easy. My feeling on this is that perhaps there should be a different assignment. Really, it depends on the learning goals. If the goal is to process and synthesize information, I think Wikipedia should be included in that process. If the goal is to learn how to find things in a library, then clearly Wikipedia shouldn’t be used.
Wikipedia is like a calculator in math classes. What if there was a math assignment where students were to do long division? Would it be wrong for the students to use a calculator? I think it depends. Why are they doing long division? In the past, long division was taught in schools so that students could divide numbers. But if the goal is to divide stuff, a calculator would make more sense.
There is another reason to teach long division: to give insight into how division works and what place value means. If this is the goal, the calculator actually doesn’t help. It just skips the whole processes, so it would be a bad-thing.
I need to make another post about long division. You know what is cool about long division? Doing long division with binary numbers.
1 year ago
#wikipedia 
newyorker:

A Wikipedia cartoon of the day.
2 years ago
#wikipedia 
Wikipedia And The Death Of The Expert→

Wikipedia has three main advantages over its print ancestors:

  1. Wikipedia offers far richer, more comprehensive citations to source materials and bibliographies on- and offline, thereby providing a far better entry point for serious study;

  2. It is instantly responsive to new developments;

  3. Most significantly, users can “look under the hood” of Wikipedia in order to investigate the controversial or doubtful aspects of any given subject. I refer to the magical “History” button that appears in the top right corner of any Wikipedia page. Click this, and you will have instantaneous access to everything that has ever been written on the Wikipedia page in question. (In rare cases, i.e., during an edit war, a Wikipedia administrator may remove material, but this almost never happens.) The course of long and intricately involved disputations may thus come instantly to light. Of course, a load of dimwitted yelling and general codswallop may also emerge, but let’s face it, the same thing happens with any given stack of books in the library, only in more formal, less convenient packaging.

(Source: azspot)

3 years ago
#wikipedia 
theatlantic:

Is Wikipedia a World Cultural Repository?

Boasting more than 18 million entries in 279 languages, Wikipedia is arguably the largest store of human knowledge in the history of mankind. In its first decade, the digital encyclopedia has done more to challenge the way we think about the relationship between knowledge and the Internet than virtually any other website. But is this ubiquitous tree of knowledge as culturally sacred as the pyramids of Giza, the archaeological site of Troy, or the Native American mound cities of Cahokia?
Jimmy Wales, president of Wikipedia, thinks so. The digital encyclopedia will launch a petition this week to have the website listed on the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s world heritage lists. If accepted, Wikipedia would be afforded the international protection and preservation afforded to man made monuments and natural wonders.
Read more at The Atlantic
3 years ago
#wikipedia 
thedailywhat:

By The People of the Day: A Wonkette reader who recently visited the Louisiana State Capitol building in Baton Rouge made a rather disconcerting discovery: The biography of Louisiana’s first governor, William C. C. Claiborne — which is situated on a pedestal by his statue — is naught more than a two-page printout from Wikipedia, circa 2009.
[wonkette.]
3 years ago
#wikipedia 
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica→

stfuconservatives:

I realize I’ve been citing Wikipedia a lot today, and that many frown upon using it as a valid resource. In fact, one smug reader once sent me a message that just said, “Pro tip: don’t quote Wiki :)”

Cool story bro. However, a fact-checking study found the same number of “vital errors” (described as “general misunderstandings of vital concepts”) in both Wikipedia and the venerable E.B. Wiki had more “minor errors” - but not that many.

Wikipedia is a valuable resource with very high standards for its content. Its accessibility (not to mention the price!) is an asset.

3 years ago
#wikipedia #education 
thedailywhat:

Infographic of the Day: Information lover David McCandless put together this quick diagram illustrating the effectiveness of donation appeals on Wikipedia.
McCandless writes:

Like me, you might also have thought “Woah – Wikipedia-founder Jimmy Wales looks like Michael Bolton’s older, womanizing brother.” Okay maybe not that *exact* thought. But perhaps you wondered how such a dating site facial could possibly work as an appeal? As ever, the data tells a different story.

[infobeautiful.]
3 years ago
#wikipedia #charity #jimmy wales