Wikipedia vs Teachers

victor

victor

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
In studying for my exam next week, I've found that checking stuff on Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, helps a lot with course material that is missing, or that teachers didn't really bother talking about. For example, I learned a lot about production layouts on Wikipedia, instead of having to go through more than 50 pages of written text. While I'm still reading what the teacher is offering, I've noticed that being able to pinpoint information in online documents, for instance using the Ctrl-F function in IE or Firefox while reading a coded article, is much easier than searching an entire printed document. This helps a lot when trying to figure out old exam questions, or just wanting to learn about a specific term. The downside is that the information learned is very specific, instead of getting the broader sense of things when reading a book.

I'm not going to go as far as to say Wikipedia can replace human teachers, but when they obviously don't make much of an effort and just blurt out an entire 70 or so page compendium without any comments or underlined elements, when the space taken up by the subject in the actual exam is a sixth of the maximum score, comes off as pretty nonchalant. We don't really get to know what part of that compendium is important, either, meaning we end up having to learn all of it.

My strategy here is (after reading through the course text about production layouts) going over old exams to try and find a pattern in the questions asked, extracting keywords and key elements from them, and subsequently learning about them on Wikipedia and such sites. There's so much bullshit in the course literature it's ridiculous.
 
The thing with Wikipedia is that it's editable by everyone, so it can't be quoted as an academic source. Nevertheless, there is a lot of (superficial) info on it, often with links to real academic sources.
 
Well yeah, but if I have enough shallow knowledge of the subject that I can see if things are correct, alternatively double-check them, and if the sources are well-documented and referred to in the article, it's very very useful.
 
I would not put TOO much trust into whatever is written in the Wikipedia, though, especially if you are researching some more obscure subjects. The less people visit a page and can correct any, if all, mistakes, the bigger probability to find a lol here and there.
 
Apparently, the articles about manufacture such as welding and molding are pretty well backed up, one has even received a star IIRC. Still, I don't have much choice when teacher effort is close to nothing.
 
I don't really like Wikipedia. But that may also be me studying law and preferring proper handbooks.
 
yea, i agree that wiki is a great starting point along with google and possibly ask.com, but in the end they are not good enough to be a final stopping point.
 
Recently I viewed a discussion page where some people pointed out that the given pronunciation of a word was wrong. This prompted someone else to ask them to get a source since fixing it on their own was original research. I guess coming up with the error in the first place wasn't.
 
Wiki is an excelent source of bonus material but the core of the matter
i am studying is from books and scripts.

Still,two thumbs up for Wiki.
 
The Overseer said:
The downside is that the information learned is very specific, instead of getting the broader sense of things when reading a book.
Click to expand...
I actually kind of enjoy Wikipedia being specific, combined with the "further linking" to related subjects mentioned in the brief text in question. I get this feeling that learning specific information about various subjects related to each other actually is educative in a broader sense, as you can put the pieces of essential information together by reading related texts.
Sure, reading a book for the broader sense is more coherent and provides more knowledge, but learning the Wikipedia way doesn't require that much reading to still get a proper, and reasonable deep-going, overview of the subject - this, of course, providing that the information isn't incorrect.
 
Bear in mind - Wikipedia once informed me that Gordon Brown was the first Chinese ballerina to climb Everest. I would be somewhat sceptical.
 
It's not just that Wiki isn't a good source, it's that encyclopedias as a whole are just not deep enough.

Wiki is the best encyclopedia out there, hands down, but it can never replace a scientific journal or published research or a law book. Now, for things like freshman and sophomore level undergrad classes, it could prob replace 90% of the content of those classes, lol.
 
When I'm writing one of my essays, I tend to read wikipedia first to get a general overview of the subject. From there, it's easier to get documents relevant to the bits that you want.
 
I was amused when one of my Professors (very important in his field) recommended that we start with Wikipedia for additional research.

It can be very handy to get an overview and then chase published work/references.

In biomedical/molecular bio research, I have access to a series of massive databases through NCBI, such as for research articles and textbooks, generally for free. Not much use for people outside this field though.

For me it is usually best to start with review articles and textbooks to get an overview.
 
wiki is fine as long as you remember that it is a nice tool for propaganda & disinformation.
 
Yeah, especially with games.

REVIEWER: "BIOSHOCK OMFG 10/10 GAME OF THE YEAR!"
FAN: "Cool, but just a mediocre shooter basically."

WIKIPEDIA: "The game received overwhelmingly positive reviews,[13][14] particularly in mainstream press where its "morality-based" storyline, immersive powers and Ayn Rand-inspired dystopian setting were all singled out for praise."

WIKI EDITOR: "Fan reactions are unsourced and not notable so please GTFO."
 
Wiki does bring up one REALLY good question...

what is officially 'published', and what is not?

Professional bloggers and news articles don't do anything different than livejournal bloggers, so how do we draw a distinction when it comes to who can be used as a source?
 
Wikipedia is generally good for an overview, sometimes you can find a structure in the topic, but it's nothing more. Usually, sources are totally incomprehensible, some topics are biased and tend to stress facts (who would encyclopedia expect to do, but I would to have several articles with different opinions, pros and cons etc). Also, the search engine is a nightmare, try to find a person whose names spelling you don't know exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top