Well, wikipedia would be proud to have you defend them. :)
I still don't see much controversy between your stance and what I've written, as the "brainless" quote pertains to accepting wikipedia as a proper source, which you, by your own testimony, don't do. Also, the examples given by me in the original discussion actually mentioned good teachers doing the exact same thing you are doing, only perhaps with more distinctly preemptive agendas. (since there is nothing to do about wikipedia's enormous popularity, the best thing to do is to teach about its limitations and how to handle it)
As great as your advice is on using wikipedia as a tool, you still probably need to accept the fact that many people misuse it grossly, that it is a flawed tool, and comparing it to other just as flawed tools isn't going to change that argument, nor is the notion that no tools are completely flawless. From an academic point of view, this should be pretty clear.
There are even big problems starting from the platform of wikipedia sometimes, if you're just starting to get to know your subject (you in a general sense, not personal), unless someone really follows your manual on how to go about it. Many people are not taught this way of thinking at all however, or are simply too lazy to do it anyway.
The conclusion is still that you like wikipedia way more than I do, and that I think it is flawed and deeply uneven in reliability - and unlike some other such tools, it is both very popular and influential. And unfortunately you took a generally stated opinion and transferred it onto rather deep personal levels.
It would probably be advisable to accept the fact that there are many people out there who know how to use wikipdia, know what it its for and its place among informational tools, and still don't consider it great.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/11 18:58 (UTC)I still don't see much controversy between your stance and what I've written, as the "brainless" quote pertains to accepting wikipedia as a proper source, which you, by your own testimony, don't do. Also, the examples given by me in the original discussion actually mentioned good teachers doing the exact same thing you are doing, only perhaps with more distinctly preemptive agendas. (since there is nothing to do about wikipedia's enormous popularity, the best thing to do is to teach about its limitations and how to handle it)
As great as your advice is on using wikipedia as a tool, you still probably need to accept the fact that many people misuse it grossly, that it is a flawed tool, and comparing it to other just as flawed tools isn't going to change that argument, nor is the notion that no tools are completely flawless. From an academic point of view, this should be pretty clear.
There are even big problems starting from the platform of wikipedia sometimes, if you're just starting to get to know your subject (you in a general sense, not personal), unless someone really follows your manual on how to go about it. Many people are not taught this way of thinking at all however, or are simply too lazy to do it anyway.
The conclusion is still that you like wikipedia way more than I do, and that I think it is flawed and deeply uneven in reliability - and unlike some other such tools, it is both very popular and influential. And unfortunately you took a generally stated opinion and transferred it onto rather deep personal levels.
It would probably be advisable to accept the fact that there are many people out there who know how to use wikipdia, know what it its for and its place among informational tools, and still don't consider it great.