OK, my daughter (14) has had it drummed in to her by the school that "we aren't allowed to use wikipedia because it can be updated by any member of the public"...
You only have to mention wikipedia and she blurts that out!!!
The fact that any member of the public can register a convincing domain name and put up a convincing web site with total drivel in it, without peer review, making them less reliable than wikipedia, seems to be beside the point. They are allowed to use any other web site as reference apart from wikipedia.
The fact wikipedia articles normally have a long list of external references, which are the very web sites that they are allowed to look at, so they can check the sources (even though those themselves could be bogus) does not seem to matter either.
I may write to the school...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fencing
Bit of fun... We usually put up some Christmas lights on the house - some fairy lights on the metal fencing at the front, but a pain as mean...
-
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us... -
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo... -
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...
The whole anti-wikipedia thing is quite amusing, sure wikipedia can be full of misleading nonesense, but they seem to have no understanding that even the 'official' account can be nothing more than fiction. Having some 'official' or government rubber stamp doesn't make something true, trustworthy or the 'right thing'.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, History is written by the victors..
It all makes much more sense when you realise it's not about being right, it's about being able to shift the blame for being wrong.
ReplyDelete