.jpg)
Make sure you don't cite from bad sources
I wanted to start the week with a little bit of humor. I feel as we head into the 4th of July weekend, many students start to ask themselves, "What can I do this weekend?"
Some go to buy fireworks. Some go to visit with family or friends. Some are just unlucky enough to be working on their summer class and that crazy midterm paper. You're trying to finish it up so you can have a great three-day weekend, but you're stuck.
You decide to turn to the Internet to find a quick solution. Forget using books or the library, you're turning to Wikipedia. The site most dreaded by professors, including myself.
Why such a big stink? For those of you unfamiliar, the Wikipedia site allows you to do quick searches for whatever topic you might imagine. It looks, feels, and acts like a real encyclopedia.
There's a catch: None of the sources are are 100% accurate.
This is because the website allows postings from all over the world. That means anyone who thinks they know anything can log on and post their own definitions. This causes other people to get mad, delete those original postings, and put their own definition into the space.
By the end, you have only a small percentage of usable information. I'm amazed when a student turns in a paper, and sites this website. It's a great starting place, but certainly not a site I would bet my grade on.
To prove my point, I'm sharing this YouTube/College Humor video. The tongue-in-cheek approach to how Wikipedia works is well demonstrated. The three-minute PG-13 video should have you laughing, blushing, and hopefully rethinking the way you use the Wikipedia site.
Comments
Sheesh. Everyone has gotten past this already. Some info on Wikipedia very good, some is not. That's the way the Internet works. get over it and teach yourself and your students how to use resources critically. That's part of your job as a professor.
Whoa! a little civility, please Mike...
Good video! Nice reminder of why we need to do real research.
Happy Independence Day, y'all!
Mike, you're completely right, it's about determining whether something is reliable.
When I'm at nytimes.com, I assume it's reliable, when I'm at joeschmoe.blogspot.com, I am skeptical. It's no different on Wikipedia. I see a well cited article where I can check the references, I'm pretty sure it's reliable. When something is off, and I check the history and the last edits were by 68.1.1.123, who has been blocked for vandalism 3 times, well then I realize that it's not that reliable (and if I have time I'll fix it/revert the edits).
And that there is only a "small percentage of usable information," is just a lie. >99% of the information is correct.
Does it need to be 100% accurate? Besides the hyperbole, it seems a whole better than the alternatives: an elitist paper encycolopedia that alienates the masses, their drinking buddies, and new sources that provide little depth or overview of the topic hollistically.
Teach your students to read critically, good articles have References section that lead the reasonably reliable sources. The sources may not be perfect, it may express biased or it may be incomplete, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!