When, wikipedia went black, some wrote more kids went to libraries to do their homework.
Jimbo made such a big deal of kids who should do their homework before the blackout , but is using Wikipedia good for the kids?
Let's assume wikipedia's articles are 100% reliable but do we really want our children to be dependent on wikipedia, and not be able to do research on their own. Is it harder for a kid, who used lots of Wikipedia for his homework in a school, to study in a uni? Is it harder for such kid to become a good doctor or a good engineer?

Yep, Wikipedia is not good for kids. Google is maybe not so bad, or wouldn't be if they'd stop giving preferential treatment to Wikipedia.

Teachers and parents are good for kids, but the teenaged hordes who are effectively in control of Wikipedia are of the age where they feel quite confidently that they know better than their parents and teachers.

Well, teachers and parents are not always good for kids (particularly not the control freaks who abuse, emotionally or violently, those who they are supposed to "protect"), but I agree, Wikipedia is not good at helping school children at research. WP is pretty good for mathematics-related articles, which are often very detailed and thorough, but the history and politics articles are an entirely different matter.

Also, the title grammatically incorrect is. Can some person generous it fix? KTHXBAI

well hmm, apart from exposure to hardcore pornography, sexual predators, addictive editing that takes up every waking minute of some teenagers days... what else?

How about: exposure to subtle racism. An example would be the article about Philadelphia. You wouldn't have this problem with a real encyclopedia.

All the above apply to the internet in general. If parents choose to give their children unfettered access to the internet then more fool them.

Yes but the internet in general doesn't have a charitable foundation behind it, marketing its product to parents, schools, and children directly. The internet in general can't sneak in on a whitelist masquerading as an "educational resource".

Wikipedia is an "educational resource", just not a very good one. It's only got where it is because it's free.

If it really had true value would it be free?

This is what schools and parents should ask themselves.

Well, when I posted this question, I actually meant teens who only use (read) wikipedia, not the ones who edit it. Kids who use wikipedia instead of going to libraries or even the NET for their own research could not be able to work on their own, when they would be required to do so.

With the ones who edit it, it is a different story. On the one hand editing Wikipedia is better than doing drugs, for example, but on the other hand it is also very addictive. A young person who gets addicted to wikipedia could fell behind in his studies, and could get kicked out of university, and could get depressed because of that. I have heard such stories.

Oh yeah I agree, drugs are far better.

Note how teenagers who grow up with Wikipedia become very foolish college students.

Most scary quote in there:


How many issues of muddle-headed thinking are in that one statement? I'll start off:

1. The site does not depend on consensus. Structural flaws in Wikipedia and policy do not mean that the ideal answer, by whatever measure, will drive out worse.

2. The editors of Wikipedia are demonstrably not representative of society at large, therefore I cannot envisage how any consensus on Wikipedia can be representative of society's consensus.

3. Which society? US, UK, European.

4. One expert may be right. 1,000,000 idiots can still be wrong.

5. "Experts" such as university professors are probably a more reliable source of knowledge than society consensus for both deep science issues and general every day facts. People with day to day experience will generally be more knowledgeable than someone whose knowledge is based on a few conversations down the pub.

Let's see if we can get to 50.