Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy
Did we miss this? ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6943325/Schoolchildren-told-to-avoid-Wikipedia.html from The Telegraph - Graeme Paton, Education Editor Published: 06 Jan 2010
QUOTE
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 untrueâ€, 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:35pm)
...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.
Posted by: BelovedFox
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 13th February 2010, 2:06am)
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:35pm)
...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
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Fri 12th February 2010, 7:08pm)
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 13th February 2010, 2:06am)
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:35pm)
...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.
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 12th February 2010, 6:45pm)
QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Fri 12th February 2010, 7:08pm)
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 13th February 2010, 2:06am)
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:35pm)
...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"
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: NotARepublican55
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 12th February 2010, 7:35pm)
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.
Posted by: Apathetic
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:06pm)
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:35pm)
...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
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Sat 13th February 2010, 6:19pm)
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:06pm)
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 12th February 2010, 9:35pm)
...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".