The funny thing about this is I think I get where you are coming from, but also think all of your examples are at best problematic. Wikipedia is a reasonable r

The funny thing about this is I think I get where you are coming from, but also think all of your examples are at best problematic. Wikipedia is a reasonable replacement for an encyclopedia - which remains a terrible replacement for a library. Simulations are never a replacement for what they simulate. At best this can be a great supplement to more concrete learning - at worst they replace it with facile misunderstanding. Finally - while students absolutely should be able to leverage the vast amount of information we have available, a lot of it is misleading or just intentionally wrong. We should be working hard now on figuring out how to give kids tools to evaluate and analyse this. Raw information is easier than ever to put your hands on, but that's never been particularly useful by itself. So absolutely, let's leverage technology But lets not pretend that we have viable replacements (yet?) for what we don't. A vital skill to teach these days is the ability to sanity check whatever you are reading on line against reality and multiple sources. If you don't become somewhat sophisticated about navigating this sea o f information, you will be taken advantage of. That is one thing we should be concentrating on teaching - real skills, not parroting the first thing you find on Wikipedia. Nobody learns those on screens alone. The facts you came away from an education with have never been the point. The point is to learn how to learn, how to test new ideas, how to verify information, etc.