School children warned not to use Wikipedia Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Did we miss this? ... Schoolchildren told to avoid Wikipedia from The Telegraph - Graeme Paton, Education Editor Published: 06 Jan 2010

Children should use Google and Yahoo to improve their essays, according to the official exams watchdog.

Ofqual said putting keywords into internet search engines was a “good starting point” when researching pieces of coursework and dissertations.

But guidance sent out to schoolchildren in England warns pupils to be extremely wary when using other websites such as Wikipedia.

The on-line encyclopaedia – created using contributions from readers – was not “authoritative or accurate” and in some cases “may be completely untrue”, said Ofqual.

Children can also be easily tripped up by copying passages from websites containing American phrases and spellings – a clear sign of plagiarism.

The comments were made in a series of documents sent to pupils, parents and teachers warning against cheating at school.

Ofqual is the UK Government's Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator.

[Apathetic]

Surprising that they would prefer children entering words into a search engine and using their own judgment as to what links are relevant and factual, but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

[Sarcasticidealist]

...but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

I do not think that "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.

[BelovedFox]

...but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

I do not think that "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.

Well, much of Wikipedia is peer reviewed, just not in the rigorous, academic (and thus actually useful) understanding of the word

[Milton Roe]

...but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

I do not think that "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.

Well, much of Wikipedia is peer reviewed, just not in the rigorous, academic (and thus actually useful) understanding of the word

Yes. One should not confuse peer review with prick review.

[Alison]

...but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

I do not think that "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.

Well, much of Wikipedia is peer reviewed, just not in the rigorous, academic (and thus actually useful) understanding of the word

Yes. One should not confuse peer review with prick review.

I think he meant "pee'er review"

[GlassBeadGame]

Once Wikipedians accept a simulation of a scholarly activity as the activity itself I suppose detailed aspects, like peer review, can be deformed into anything they want.

[NotARepublican55]

Surprising that they would prefer children entering words into a search engine and using their own judgment as to what links are relevant and factual, but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

Or Conservapedia for that matter.

[Apathetic]

...but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

I do not think that "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.

As BelovedFox guessed, I was using the term fairly loosely

[EricBarbour]

...but discourage them from a collaborative, sourced, peer reviewed work like Wikipedia.

I do not think that "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.

As BelovedFox guessed, I was using the term fairly loosely

The word you're looking for is "ironic".

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 14th February 2010, 10:19pm