Wikipedia more dangerous than crack
Kids, just say 'no'.
A US SCHOOL librarian is treating the do-it-yourself online encyclopaedia Wackypedia like a drugs curse.
Linda O'Connor has blocked the site on the school's computers and stuck up signs all around the library saying "Just say no to Wikipedia". The motto was the same one that Nancy Reagan used for her campaign against drugs.
Soon to follow, we guess, are screenshots of a fried egg with the motto 'this is your brain on Wikipedia'.
O'Connor works for Great Meadows (N.J.) Middle School and says she has had worries about Wackypedia for ages. This was before it started banning entries of the names of famous people who its fake penis expert editors had not heard about.
She had the backing of teachers who also do not see Wackypedia as an authoritative source because it can be modified by anyone.
It all started when a teacher researching Martin Luther King Jr. found white supremacist information in the civil right's leader's entry. Then a student researching the Vietnam War found Wikipedia's casualty count had been lowered by someone who wanted kids to think that the war was a walk in the park.
O'Connor said many kids were dumb enough to take Wackypedia as if it had been handed down from a mountain by God on tablets of stone. This is when it is about as reliable as asking the cat its opinion.
When the Seattle Times asked a Wackypedia spokesperson what she thought of the ban, she agreed with it wholeheartedly.
Sandra Ordonez, communications manager for Wikimedia Foundation, said that the company does not recommend using the Web site as a primary research source either.
She said that the best you could manage is get an overview of a subject. Anyway, in college you should not be quoting rubbish from encyclopaedias anyway.
Besides, being the one part of the universe where there is no Everywhere Girl just makes the whole encyclopaedia thing a farce.
More here. µ
Comments
Don't ban it, educate!
Typical knee-jerk reaction to ban it outright, these kids will still have access to it and other sites like it, sooner or later. IMHO it would be far better to educate the kids about how wikipedia works, it's reliability as a result of this and how to validate anything that you find there.Wiki & L'inq
Is Wikipedia-bashing never ending in L'inqland?sources
If an article quotes it's sources which can be checked then fair enough wikipedia is a valid way of doing research (school based)Most articles that don't quote sources have a note at the top of the page to inform viewers of this, if kids are dumb enough to copy and paste from wikipedia without checking the sources they deserve the F's.
But the site shouldn't be banned because it might not be right, kids should be encouraged to always check facts and not take anything they are told/read as fact
Ridiculous
It's ridiculous that a LIBRARIAN takes a stand like this. Her job is to ensure a wide variety of information is AVAILABLE to the reader.By outright banning the site and instead of educating kids about it, she is doing more harm than good.
Besides, all the "cool" kids will start using Wikipedia because it's "banned". She is probably encouraging the use of Wikipedia by banning it.
Duh...
It's a parody, duh!From a libraries pov
While we do not filter anything on our library PCs and whole heartedly agree with that position I can see the attraction of making it difficult to access Wikipedia.One of a Libraries tasks (be it school/public or special) is to have information for educational/research purposes. This means that we have to strive to present and have information that is accurate or that has some sort of authority. By authority I mean either that the author has some recognized expertise in the area they are writing about or at least some accountability by having a name attached to their published work.
While generally Wikipedia’s information is probably not bad the very fact that it can be edited by anyone and that people can and do vandalise it lowers its usefulness to a library as a work of knowledge to about nil.
In a school libraries case it is possibly magnified. Having to explain to every child that while Wikipedias information is probably correct it may not be would be a horrendous waste of time. Time better spent pointing said child to another published work with that authority I was talking about. The information may be no better than what is available at Wikipedia but at least you can be pretty damned sure it hasn’t be vandalized on a whim.
where are Gods tablets
And just which source apart from Wikipedia is handed down from God on tablets of stone? None of the information we recieve from ANY source can be taken as gospel. I doubt the other sources are any more reliable in general than WIkipedia.E-mail Her With Your Suggestions
E-mail her with your suggestions at:loconnor@GMRSD.COM
This happens, everywhere.
It may be extreme to create anti-wikipedia posters, but my school district bans the access to wikipedia.org as well. Any website containing the word "wiki" is banned because it is considered "wiki"My school district is SDUSD and they've banned wikis for ages now.
it's still as reliable as the gubmint. . .
as it's the gubmint that deliberately misleads, rather than only vandalises.Treat the Symptoms, not the Cause...
Typical. Instead of treating the cause (Using a single source and neglecting to do reference verification.) these teachers are treating the symptom (Using Wikipedia.)That makes no sense what so ever. The most ironic thing is that there are a lot of sites using Wikipedia as a source for their own material, as allowed by the GFDL.
But I guess it's always easier to stick your head in the bushes than to actually devise a real solution for a problem like this...
.: Max romantschuk - http://max.romantschuk.fi
Bring on the lawyers
What's really coming soon is a court case for arbitrary restriction of freedom of information - although I can hardly see why anyone would want to include the Wacky in the same category as information.The ultimate irony, though, is that the site's own top management does not condone its use in the school.
Frankly I find that refreshingly honest. Will the zealots get a clue ? Most probably not.
Banned? Yes!
I think that Wikipedia is a PR vehicle and a tool for defamation and slander. It should be banned not only by schools and educators, but by the ICC and FCC altogether.4 Andrew
"Kids should be encouraged to always check facts"Always?
When have kids EVER checked anything?
lets make it real shall - we
Research once, Write once, I'm done now it's time to partae!! Bring on those little yellow suger spots and the flaming vokda...
Educational?
What could be more educational than to teach kids that no source of information is 100% reliable? Wikipedia exposes this truth by letting anybody edit and everybody see who has been editing and what they changed. Kids (and adults for that matter) can use Wikipedia to learn to tell the difference between well referenced material and random nonsense as Wikipedia contains plenty of both.Those who are mature enough to know that "reliable source" has always been a relative term will recognise Wikipedia as refreshingly honest. Only those fools still clinging to the delusion that media sources should be cannonical sources which are trusted without question seem find it irksome.
I don't like the constant sniping about Wikipedia's editorial policies either. The policies are openly published and anybody can discuss them and suggest changes. When did any other enyclopaedia do that?
Best
Wikipedia is by far the best thing the Internet revolution has brought about. Only a moron could see Wikipedia as a threat. (And lemme let you in on a li'l secret: world is full of morons!)Logical
I'm sure they ban wikipedia in american schools mainly to prevent americans getting a clue or education.Having a clue/education will only confuse people at the voting booth.
It prevents pupils growing up to become teachers/librarians who believing out of nowhere that anybody on the planet calls wikipedia 'an authoritative source'
U5K0.ednevnik.si
Perhaps she could teach students enough so they would be able to redognise nazi propaganda?Also how about if you had students learn about a subject enough so they could actually correct errors on WP?
Unreliable and dangerous
Wikipedia is not only unreliable, but dangerous. Since it's so popular, there are people who use it to push personal agendas and informartion that fits their own interests. Just take the example of Linda Mack : she edits under the name of SlimVirgin, who's also a sysop with the power to ban anybody with dissenting views. Just google her. Mack has filled many articles with lies.Wikipedia as a source
I work in a Uni. I have no problem with Wikipedia as such (indeed, I often trawl through it myself), but I have found that because students tend to use it as their only reference, the fact that it sometimes wrong means that the work they submit will be wrong.Wikipedia used as a back up to, or in conjunction with, another source can be good. Wikipedia used on it's own is bad.
THEY're at it again
Rubbish and lies, as usual. As someone else has already commented here - wiki is very clear as to what sources its articles cite and use, and links and superscripts for all data are provided in the articles and at the bottom of the pages.If an entry contains questionable content, then it is clearly highlighted on the page for that entry that it contains data that does not cite sources.
I think these people who keep complaining about wiki have accidently visited Uncyclopedia instead, which is a completely different website altogether and is as affiliated to the real wiki only insofar as whitehouse.org is affiliated to whitehouse.gov
Wikipedia or Wackypedia?
Which is it, Wikipedia or Wackypedia? This can get confusing as there was a Wackapedia. As for banning, I can see banning the the Uncyclopedia.org since that truly is a Wackypedia!Verry annoyed by Luddite librarians
yes WP is at risk of 'fact manipulation;' however any source of Information is biased and at risk. Many librarians are just threated by WP because it undermines their power. It's not about them. There are lots of smart librarians out there but this little cadre of alarmists are the same one's who ten years ago were whining "the Internet is not a good source of credible material"Most people realize the risk of using WP, even kids ... I know professional Writers and Scientific Researchers with Ph.Ds who recommend WP as an incredibly useful source of information. Dont listen to the condescending and sanctimonious teachers and librarians who cant deal, time will show the wiser.