The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> School children warned not to use Wikipedia
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Sat 13th February 2010, 1:18am
Post #1


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



Did we miss this? ... Schoolchildren told to avoid Wikipedia 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 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apathetic
post Sat 13th February 2010, 1:35am
Post #2


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 3rd Aug 2008, 7:36pm
Member No.: 7,383

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Sat 13th February 2010, 2:06am
Post #3


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BelovedFox
post Sat 13th February 2010, 2:08am
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 6:54pm
Member No.: 16,616

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sat 13th February 2010, 2:45am
Post #5


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 smile.gif

Yes. One should not confuse peer review with prick review.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alison
post Sat 13th February 2010, 3:09am
Post #6


Skinny Cow!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined: Tue 26th Jun 2007, 8:08pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806



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 smile.gif

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

I think he meant "pee'er review" biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Sat 13th February 2010, 4:15am
Post #7


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NotARepublican55
post Sun 14th February 2010, 1:08am
Post #8


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon 14th Dec 2009, 2:25am
Member No.: 15,925



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. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apathetic
post Sun 14th February 2010, 2:19am
Post #9


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 3rd Aug 2008, 7:36pm
Member No.: 7,383

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 14th February 2010, 10:19pm
Post #10


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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".

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 14th February 2010, 10:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 11 14, 10:38pm