pull down to refresh
67 sats \ 8 replies \ @nichro 7 Apr \ parent \ on: AI usage is now a baseline expectation - leaked Shopify memo AI
I clearly remember a grade where any online source was refused; only references to books from a library were ok.
Then there was a short time in history where they allowed online sources but said "not wikipedia though, wiki is not a source" but everyone knew you didn't cite Wikipedia itself, you cited the sources that wikipedia cited.
Then they gave up (and on to the next thing to resist)
I never understood the Wikipedia slander.
99% of the math stuff I read there is correct.
Not sure about the more subjective stuff... but newspaper articles are also subjective, so why is Wikipedia worse as a source??
reply
reply
You know what is funny is that the fact anyone can edit it is only part of the story. The only people that use this argument haven't actually edited a page. I've messed with Wikipedia pages and created ones based on fabrications. Mostly because I just wanted to see what would happen. Lets just say... this argument is dumb.
Wikipedia isn't "true" but in my experience I trust it more than most books I read in school. At least, at this point.
reply
Its not hard. Wikipedia is a great source, not of truth but of information. The problem with most in education is not that they distrust Wikipedia but that they put to much trust in more traditional sources. Wikipedia is VERY useful in my experience but you can't just blindly trust it.
reply
Yeah, to me the issue isn't that people distrust Wikipedia, it's that they think it's less trustworthy than .gov or .edu. I forgot where I saw it, but I think I saw something teaching kids how to write, and they said that ".gov" and ".edu" sources are more credible.
The sad thing is--to the extent that you want to appear credible, that's probably correct, coz most people think that way.
But if you want to actually arrive at the truth, I don't automatically consider .gov or .edu more credible than anything else.