dublin students wikipedia experiment (1 Viewer)

[Froog]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html?via=mr

lazy journalists, amazing.

 

[Catwoman]

Lazy Daily Mirror journo shocka

 

[Lili Marlene]

wikipedia is the worst thing in the world

and I use it all the time

 

[Froog]

i think wikipedia is great, but journo's using it for articles and students using it for assignments/papers is pretty dumb.

 

[Gambra]

i think wikipedia is great, but journo's using it for articles and students using it for assignments/papers is pretty dumb.

I can't count the number of times someone in my class has given me a paper to look over for spelling etc and I've spotted the wikipedia footnote notation in the middle of a load of text. Sake

 

[Froog]

I can't count the number of times someone in my class has given me a paper to look over for spelling etc and I've spotted the wikipedia footnote notation in the middle of a load of text. Sake

i heard about some professor who wrote the wiki article on the subject he was giving a test on and caught out the whole class.

 

[magicbastarder]

sure there was the campaign waged by p45.net - sending emails from hotmail accounts to newspapers with fake stories - which ended up with the story of the repatriation of the taking of christ as a front page story on the indo.

 

[Pantone247]

this proves nothing, I work in "The Media" and have seen this happen a lot (see Dead TV Theme Composser Credited With Girls Aloud Song Writing Credit), once something goes up on Wiki it will be picked up by other newspaper, but also fan-sites, "Ask" type websites, blogs, etc, etc, you find your quote, you go to fact check it, it turns up everywhere, you run with it.. why would you not?

wikipedia requires trust and honesty, if you started to
assume everything on it, and indeed everything on the internet was a lie, what the hell do you base any research on? why should a huge knowledge resource be denounced and discredited because some lazy student played some prank and passed it off a "work"

 

[nooleen]

been caught out yourself eh?

 

[egg_]

I agree with pantone. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, acting the maggot with it is not clever

 

[egg_]

i heard about some professor who wrote the wiki article on the subject he was giving a test on and caught out the whole class.

What do you mean "caught them out"? Is doing research outside the prescribed texts not what students are supposed to do?

 

[Froog]

What do you mean "caught them out"? Is doing research outside the prescribed texts not what students are supposed to do?

you're supposed to use published academic papers and textbooks for essays/assignments when i went to college. has this changed?

 

[Gambra]

What do you mean "caught them out"? Is doing research outside the prescribed texts not what students are supposed to do?

you get crucified if you use wikipedia in any form of paper or assignment. Even if they suspect you of using it they can fail you. It's because nothing on there is verified or 'peer reviewed'

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Not getting wikipedia is a lithmus test for just not getting the modern world.

When people talk about peer review they completely miss the point of what wikipedia is.

 

[egg_]

you get crucified if you use wikipedia in any form of paper or assignment. Even if they suspect you of using it they can fail you. It's because nothing on there is verified or 'peer reviewed'

Hmmm
I had it in my head that this was just academic snobbery, but now that I think about it, it's not, really, is it? You can find all kinds of discredited and plain wrong shit in textbooks too, but I guess that's a different issue

edit - when I was in college the www was still in its infancy, so I never really had to think about this kinda stuff.

 

[nooleen]

i think textbooks are full of crap to keep them simple

 

[MDR]

Maybe journalists should just put a disclaimer on their articles by saying "To be honest I knew nothing about this issue until ten minutes ago when I just checked wiki and the first few sites suggested by google, so there's really no need for you to read this article as you could have researched it just as easily yourself."

 

[Mormon Nailer]

I think there is a certain acedemic snobbery. But I think the idea that there is any source of information that can be simply blindly accepted is wrong.

Wikipedia simply polls the opininon of interested people on any subject.

It's the first place I go when I hear or read something I'm unfamilliar with.

And I'll warrant for technical subjects wikipedia gives a better overview than any textbook and is probably less prone to error and is more current.

 

[hanley]

It's because nothing on there is verified or 'peer reviewed'

thats bull, theres loads of articles on wikipedia that reference research papers which are all peer reviewed. maybe not in every field but there is in plenty of areas

 

[nooleen]

Maybe journalists should just put a disclaimer on their articles by saying "To be honest I knew nothing about this issue until ten minutes ago when I just checked wiki and the first few sites suggested by google, so there's really no need for you to read this article as you could have researched it just as easily yourself."

maybe journalists should all be shot