.jpg)
This lady trust Wikipedia. Do you?
It was awesome to see the feedback from the intial Wikipedia article. I am fortunate to have some of the best readers on the Examiner site. I even mention that to my Editor. With the amount of postings, on blog sites, that turn to personal attacks, I was so happy to see well thought out writings supported by both personal opinion and fact.
It's postings like this that make me happy to be in education. Whenever I hear people complain that American students are becoming lazy or stupid, I just want to scream and pull them into one of my classes. Now, I can simply send my comment board link, and show them that they are wrong. Thank you to all of you!
There was something interesting that was shared throughout the comments and e-mails I received. They had three common threads of similar ideas, and today, I want to comment on these topics.
First thread: Students, or any user of Wikipedia, need to do better research on their topic.
This was the main point of my previous article. I was so happy to hear that many of you take the time to check the sources listed at the end of each posting. You would be surprised at how many people, including students, don't take that extra step in the research process. Wikipedia is a great starting point, but you should use this site as a stepping stone to more information.
For those of you who really understand how to verify your sources, I challenge you to also teach your peers or co-workers the importance of double checking their facts. In some cases, your Professors may not even take the time to demonstrate good research methods, and ultimately dock you points because you site Wikipedia. Using the reference section, at the article's end, will put you in a much better position when turning in a paper.
Second thread: Professors have to do better when teaching the research process.
Although many Professors would turn their nose to this comment, it is absolutely valid. I can't tell you how many times, especially in undergraduate school, Professors assign a research paper or project, and give very little advice on where to go from there. I see it today, and am constantly amazed that faculty refuse to spend more time on the topic of research methods.
Before I assign a paper, I make it clear what kind of information I want, and I usually require citations from journals, books, or newspapers. I don't stop there. I usually try to bring in an example, pull information up on the screen, or at a minimum, point my students to the library. This is something that I've been trying to change, with other faculty, since I became a Professor.
Final thread: Wikipedia is as valid as any other major news source.
When I first read this thought, I was honestly surprised. I thought about it, and it turns out that your argument is correct. What I didn't take into account was the fact that the news organizations including CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, have been pulling major stories from sites like Twitter, FaceBook, MySpace, and even Wikipedia. People want to become more involved with the news, and as such, have changed the way the news gets reported.
Since we generally accept the news as "accurate" reporting, and now that we know that anyone can post a story to these organizations, it has to be accepted that Wikipedia deserves a bit more credibility. Even though Wikipedia allows anyone to change facts, it has started to run like a newspaper. One of my readers sent me this interesting CNET article. It talks about how Wikipedia recently worked with the New York Times in order to save the life of a Times reporter.
By not allowing that information out onto the Internet, or by deleting any postings on this particular journalist, they controlled the content and used their editorial powers similar to that of any other major news source. Therefore, one can argue, Wikipedia may very well become the official news outlet.
Thanks for the feedback. It was a pleasure learning from many of you!
Comments