5 ms·
A web site banned as a source for facts from schools the world over now bans a web site as a a source of its banned facts.
by arthev 8y ago
A web site banned as a source for facts from schools the world over now bans a web site as a a source of its banned facts.
- danpalmer 8y agoI get the joke, but it is worth clarifying that schools don’t ban it because it’s unreliable, but because it’s a secondary source. It’s done to teach sourcing discipline.
- jstanley 8y agoUnfortunately, most teachers don't understand this, and they tell the kids that Wikipedia is normally wrong about everything. At least, that was my experience.
- saagarjha 8y agoMany teachers accept other secondary sources, though. News article that summarizes a scientific paper? Ok. Wikipedia article citing that paper? Not ok. My impression of this has been a mix of misinformation (anyone can edit it, it must be wrong!), and the fact that it’s just too easy: it really doesn’t make students “work for” their information, so it completely throws off their schedule because everyone has quick access to a reasonably high-quality source.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- solarkraft 8y agoIt really is mostly FUD. Wikipedia tends to be quite accurate (on somewhat popular topics, anyway) precisely BECAUSE there are multiple people reviewing articles. I'd argue that its strength is exactly being a secondary source, instead of just alledging facts someone has already taken the time to value multiple sources. Additionally the talk page often adds extra depth. Instead of blindly hyping against Wikipedia, it should be taught to use it well (and not depend on it too much).
- chki 8y agoI don't think schools ban Wikipedia because it's a secondary source. Because then they would also have to ban most textbooks.
- billysielu 8y agoWhy wouldn't you want a student seeking a secondary (or more) source? Just blindly believe what the teacher says and don't question it? That education system is failing that student.
- detaro 8y agoThat's not what "secondary source" means.
- billysielu 8y agoThanks for clarifying that. Of course, nothing in a classroom is a primary source.
- ceejayoz 8y agoIf you're saying that, you still haven't had the definition of "primary source" sufficiently clarified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source > In the study of history as an academic discipline, a Primary Source (also called an original source or evidence) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person. Many, many things in a classroom will be primary sources.
- billysielu 8y agoAt my school (UK) we had 2 main sources - the teacher, and the textbook. Niether were primary. Students used the internet a lot, and Encarta (lol), and were constantly getting grief from teachers for doing so.
- 8y ago
- DuskStar 8y agoI'm pretty sure Wikipedia is a tertiary source, actually. Their guidelines recommend preferring secondary sources, and place significant restrictions on the use of primary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
- jccalhoun 8y agoI'm a college professor and I tell students they shouldn't cite wikipedia because they shouldn't be citing any encyclopedias (except something like a legal encyclopedia or something like that) because they should look for primary sources. However, I tell them to go read wikipedia and look at the sources cited in a wikipedia article.