[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ok.computer wrote: [/QUOTENAME]the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate.[/QUOTE]
That's why there are numerous more accurate fan sites.[/QUOTE]
Your average 12 year old is going to go straight to Wiki. I don't doubt the veracity, or work put into, or accuracy of those fan sites, but Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool.
I know that they should be encouraged to at least open the odd book cover, but they aren't. So again, just to reiterate, if this is their first port of call on any number of subjects, it should be as accurate as possible. So I applaud the efforts of those above who are trying to ensure that this very high-profile internet encyclopedia is in some way accurate.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ok.computer wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool. [/QUOTE]
That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled.
Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool. [/QUOTE]
That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ok.computer wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool. [/QUOTE]
That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled. [/QUOTE]
Be appalled. And welcome to the next generation.
Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool. [/QUOTE]
That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled. [/QUOTE]
Be appalled. And welcome to the next generation.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ok.computer wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool. [/QUOTE]
That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled. [/QUOTE]
Around here it's the first place to go. Look on the average source list of a school project: half of the sources are mostly wikipedia or links from wikipedia.
Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool. [/QUOTE]
That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled. [/QUOTE]
Around here it's the first place to go. Look on the average source list of a school project: half of the sources are mostly wikipedia or links from wikipedia.
I've heard recently that a lot of teachers are banning wikipedia as a reference.
Considering the stories recently of articles being edited by the CIA, Apple, The Vatican etc, etc. I would find it unlikely that any decent teacher would accept wikipedia as a valid source of information.
Also in March 2007 one of the leading wikipedia administrators was exposed as a fraud.
---------
"A prominent Wikipedia administrator and Wikia employee has been caught lying to the media and 'other' professors about his academic credentials. Wikipedia's Essjay has been representing himself as 'a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. My Academic Degrees: Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.), Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.), Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.), Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD).' His real identity came to light after Wikia offered him a job: It turns out that he is really 24 years old with no degree living in Louisville, KY. Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, says 'I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it.' How will this affect Wikipedia's already shaky reputation with the academic world?"
---------
Also from February 2007:
College History Department: Wikipedia Not Acceptable Research Source
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251718,00.html?sPage=fnc.technology/personaltechnology
Also in March 2007 one of the leading wikipedia administrators was exposed as a fraud.
---------
"A prominent Wikipedia administrator and Wikia employee has been caught lying to the media and 'other' professors about his academic credentials. Wikipedia's Essjay has been representing himself as 'a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. My Academic Degrees: Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.), Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.), Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.), Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD).' His real identity came to light after Wikia offered him a job: It turns out that he is really 24 years old with no degree living in Louisville, KY. Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, says 'I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it.' How will this affect Wikipedia's already shaky reputation with the academic world?"
---------
Also from February 2007:
College History Department: Wikipedia Not Acceptable Research Source
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251718,00.html?sPage=fnc.technology/personaltechnology
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hi Fans,
We have been trying to fix up the Freddie Mercury Wikipedia article so that we can hopefully make it a "Featured Article" or something like that.
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury. Trust me, it is a lot better than many of the articles that have actually been featured on the main page. For instance, there was a featured Gwen Stefani article that acticle that actually had a trivia section stuck in it. Talk about crappy! I guess that her fans are very dedicated.
I would greatly appreciate any help here, although I hope that the content will remain relatively constant. Feel free to change the wording or to move sentences around. I think that it is vastly better than it was over a year ago when it was rated as a B article.
I would be interested in any new references that
you may have as well. I also do not know the authors of references 12, 14, 20 and 30. If anyone knows, that would be great. These came from Melody Maker, People and the NME. [/QUOTE]
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever aka Bitch For Freddie
I find it funny that you are trying to improve Freddie's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you who edit pages not based on facts but on an agenda. I remember the way you edited Brian's Wikipedia page and the Queen Wikipedia page to give the impression that Brian was a dishonest egomaniacal backstabbing jerk.
If people stuck to verifiable facts when editing Wikipedia it would be much better. Hopefully people will stick to verifiable facts when working on Freddie's Wikipedia page. His life and legacy are brilliant without alot of Bullshit.
We have been trying to fix up the Freddie Mercury Wikipedia article so that we can hopefully make it a "Featured Article" or something like that.
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury. Trust me, it is a lot better than many of the articles that have actually been featured on the main page. For instance, there was a featured Gwen Stefani article that acticle that actually had a trivia section stuck in it. Talk about crappy! I guess that her fans are very dedicated.
I would greatly appreciate any help here, although I hope that the content will remain relatively constant. Feel free to change the wording or to move sentences around. I think that it is vastly better than it was over a year ago when it was rated as a B article.
I would be interested in any new references that
you may have as well. I also do not know the authors of references 12, 14, 20 and 30. If anyone knows, that would be great. These came from Melody Maker, People and the NME. [/QUOTE]
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever aka Bitch For Freddie
I find it funny that you are trying to improve Freddie's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you who edit pages not based on facts but on an agenda. I remember the way you edited Brian's Wikipedia page and the Queen Wikipedia page to give the impression that Brian was a dishonest egomaniacal backstabbing jerk.
If people stuck to verifiable facts when editing Wikipedia it would be much better. Hopefully people will stick to verifiable facts when working on Freddie's Wikipedia page. His life and legacy are brilliant without alot of Bullshit.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Considering the stories recently of articles being edited by the CIA, Apple, The Vatican etc, etc. I would find it unlikely that any decent teacher would accept wikipedia as a valid source of information.
Also in March 2007 one of the leading wikipedia administrators was exposed as a fraud.
(SNIP)
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the door swings both ways. You'll find that on serious (and I mean more serious than a rock group) topics, there will be a little more importance placed on accuracy. And less monkeying around by people looking to make an arse of the thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm which highlights the inaccuracies in Britannica on a par with Wiki.
But we could ping-pong this back and forth all night. And what would be the point of that? None. Life's too short.
It says so in Wikipedia...
Also in March 2007 one of the leading wikipedia administrators was exposed as a fraud.
(SNIP)
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the door swings both ways. You'll find that on serious (and I mean more serious than a rock group) topics, there will be a little more importance placed on accuracy. And less monkeying around by people looking to make an arse of the thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm which highlights the inaccuracies in Britannica on a par with Wiki.
But we could ping-pong this back and forth all night. And what would be the point of that? None. Life's too short.
It says so in Wikipedia...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]teleman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever aka Bitch For Freddie
I find it funny that you are trying to improve Freddie's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you who edit pages not based on facts but on an agenda. I remember the way you edited Brian's Wikipedia page and the Queen Wikipedia page to give the impression that Brian was a dishonest egomaniacal backstabbing jerk.
If people stuck to verifiable facts when editing Wikipedia it would be much better. Hopefully people will stick to verifiable facts when working on Freddie's Wikipedia page. His life and legacy are brilliant without alot of Bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Amen.
I find it funny that you are trying to improve Freddie's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you who edit pages not based on facts but on an agenda. I remember the way you edited Brian's Wikipedia page and the Queen Wikipedia page to give the impression that Brian was a dishonest egomaniacal backstabbing jerk.
If people stuck to verifiable facts when editing Wikipedia it would be much better. Hopefully people will stick to verifiable facts when working on Freddie's Wikipedia page. His life and legacy are brilliant without alot of Bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Amen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This site is much more accurate that wikipedia. ;-)
http://www.wikiality.com/Queen
[/QUOTE]
That isn't funny. Uncyclopedia has even better things to say than this whole site does about Queen.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28band%29
http://www.wikiality.com/Queen
[/QUOTE]
That isn't funny. Uncyclopedia has even better things to say than this whole site does about Queen.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28band%29