digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at readwriteweb.com

Our Kids Are Failing - And It's All Wikipedia's Fault!

readwriteweb.com — According to the report, Eleanor Coner, the SPTC's information officer, said: "Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching." She noted that today's students do the majority of their research online instead of using books or other resources that could be found at the library.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • magicjohnson, on 06/23/2008, -4/+24wikipedia is God, I encourage any high-school or college student to use it, just don't cite it in your papers
    • Surferess, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Dude! How can you encourage that?
      • dynacrylic, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5Actually what I've wanted to for some time is attempt to write a paper only using Wikipedia, but search for the major flaws within Wikipedia- like writing a history paper based on historically inaccurate facts- e.g. George Washington crossed the Atlantic to discover the Americas.
    • emaredubyou, on 06/23/2008, -2/+12Just go to the bottom, copy down all the sources used, then you have credible sources!
    • gplpark92, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2and if you REALLY need something from books (because nowadays many English programs in schools require a minimum number of books and encyclopedias cited in projects given out to students), Google offers very decent tools for this, and in many cases, digitized versions of those.
    • dynacrylic, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3As a librarian, it's sad when I have college students come up asking for a list of resources only to add them as sources in their bib to cite copy-n-paste content from Wikipedia.

      I've literally had students come up to me and do the: Psst.... My secret is I just use Wikipedia to write my papers and I use you guys (meaning the Library) as a place to put down sources in case the professor looks them up.

      At times I feel Wikipedia may be a good starting point for research, but it's nothing I would recommend as a source to write an entire paper on.
      • chrisj33, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Agreed, Wikipedia just does not go in depth enough on so many things. It's excellent for a basic overview, but if some serious crunching needs to be done, hit the library.

        Another problem with Wikipedia is its difficulty level. Some articles on Wikipedia are a middle-school level overview, while others are completely different and difficult to understanding unless you're studying on a college level (See: any science or math article)
  • rocr69, on 06/23/2008, -0/+36Digitize more books, make them searchable.
  • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -10/+2Wikipedia = FAIL -- Council says students turn in rubbish:
    http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/155118
  • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2Also, check out other reasons why this happens at wikipedia:
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Did_the_Wikimedia ...

    Notice the in that article about astroturfing, also notice the picture in this article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_i ...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_feedb ...
    "If Wikipedia Fails" -> "Misinforms the Public, Confuses Policy" -> (good editors get banned) -> "Worse Editors" -> "Bad Edits" -> repeat -> ...

  • life38, on 06/24/2008, -0/+9I would blame the parents and school for not supporting their efforts to do book research.
    • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1That would be less significant in the cause, but I still dugg ya because it can't be excused. Rather the text is in the book or on the LCD, it is the same content. I now rely more on http://books.google.com for research than Wikipedia.
    • slvrbullet87, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2I can remember being in college and several of my teachers told us that x amount of sources had to be published in a journal or a book. I quickly realized to just say ***** the Internet for serious research as you couldn't discern fact from fiction as easily.
  • tehbored, on 06/24/2008, -0/+9Give books a gad damned search feature and make them accessible from a comfy chair and kids would use them. This isn't hard.
  • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6http://books.google.com
  • jayobear, on 06/24/2008, -2/+9More than anything, it's the educators' faults for not adapting to technology.
    • slvrbullet87, on 06/24/2008, -3/+3It isn't the educators fault. It is the students fault for not researching correctly. It is up to the students to figure out if their sources are reliable
      • crashbang, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1If they have not been taught properly, than the students are not at fault, the educators are at fault for not educating the students. Computers are here to stay and are excellent research tools. Teach children how to use them as research tools and they will use them properly. Frankly many of the teachers I have had in the past couple of years are not familiar at all with Internet research. This is why the argument seems to revolve around the students being lazy. Its easier than turning the mirror around.
    • samoan27, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Next time you're talking with a teacher or principal remind them that 50% of their kids are below average and ask them what they're doing to change that.
    • Ymeg, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1"50% of their kids are below average"

      ...
  • virginian9000, on 06/24/2008, -5/+2We have to do something about that wikipedia!
  • Darkhacker, on 06/24/2008, -1/+19This is like blaming GTA for violence among youth. Same *****, different pile. If I'm just doing casual research to answer my own questions, Wikipedia is an awesome resource. It's quick, easy, and more than 99% of the time, accurate. I don't think you're going to see published articles in journals of science citing Wikipedia. I don't think it was ever intended for that. Why not blame the students for being morons and misusing a tool?

    Also, I think the proposed idea of returning to paper books is rather silly. People drive drunk and kill others, therefore we should ban cars and return to horse and buggy? The fact of the matter is, that computers are far more efficient for finding data. If you've ever had to do research the old fashioned way (and I've had one or two teachers that have made me do it that way before), then you know how difficult it is.

    The solution is using computers properly. Databases such as LexisNexis as well as electronic versions of published books are great examples. Take credible sources and put them on computers for easy searching/bookmarking.

    Blame the students for not knowing how to do formal research versus informal; not Wikipedia.
    • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1There is a difference between looking through a library of books, and the much narrower sources that get made available on Wikipedia. I bet you'll find instances where people have used a library book at Wikipedia and got banned. The problem there is that the Wikipedia attacks the characters of the editors -- and not the sources.

      Until Wikipedia's acceptance of sources is not biased, you can't turn a blind eye to Wikipedia.
    • PlayingGangsta, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1"Wikipedia is an awesome resource. It's quick, easy, and more than 99% of the time, accurate."

      I will not disagree with the 1st half of your statement. The 2nd half, though...
  • JustAn0th3rFace, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3Honestly, there are a lot of awful biased resources on the internet other than Wikipedia as well. Text books are not always 100% accurate along with the fact that any idiot can create a website which easily can be biased or eventually outdated. At least it is easy for Wikipedia to identify as not always being the best of sources. Wikipedia, though, is a great way to start your research. Many people i know use it as a stepping stone to get a basis of information to further research.. so it does serve a purpose.. yet, like any source, you have to keep in mind where you are reading it.
    • Thayer75, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Exactly. Perfect example of textbooks not being accurate? All those "science" textbooks with Creationism (now dressed up as Intelligent Design) listed as a legitimate scientific theory.
  • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Consider also that the council found students plagiarizing Wikipedia. Those students didn't just fail because of plagiarizing, but the the content was 'rubbish'. Being that these teachers found the content rubbish and plagiarizing Wikipedia, it not only says that the students fails... but Wikipedia failed also being that it was the same rubbish that the teachers indirectly graded.
  • xsquirrel378x, on 06/24/2008, -3/+4>"Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching."

    False. IT does not include text messaging, myspace, WoW and xbox live.

    Try using Wikipedia yourself you stupid bitch
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technolog ...
    • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2From the article what this article is about:
      "Eleanor Coner, the information officer, told The Scotsman that students are good at working with computers but "rubbish" at doing research. She said they pick up information online and pass it off as their own work."

      Yep, this article twisted it a bit.
    • ObamaWins08, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Bitter much?
  • audieattar, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6I feel that they should encourage new methods of research and stop complaining... If there is a problem, address it, dont complain about it...
  • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Interesting comment on another article about this:
    http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Falling-exam-- ...
    "In regard to what No 10 wrote [about Wikipedia's sourcing policy], the so called "authoritive referencing" does not work. Earlier this year I was advised by two academics to check information in a text that I had written, with Wikepedia, in all of the 588 entries referenced, there were over 1,200 inaccuracies (many outright lies) identified, with many contradicting other entries. In one particularly slanderous entry, it was referenced to a reputable museum's articles on line. Having checked with the curator, the refence was known to be false, and that the museum was unable to have it removed from Wikepedia!"
  • Olfster, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2As I read this I pondered if they treated any article from Faux News the same as they would treat information taken from wikipedia. If teachers won't allow you to use Wikipedia, which forces you to actually check it's accuracy, I sure as hell hope they discourage use of any of Rupert's "Fair and Balanced" information without checking it's accuracy. Heck I would not even trust the WSJ anymore after he bought it. Your probably better citing a MySpace page, they own it but they don't create the content... wait after thinking about that for a second I kinda wonder.
  • steelersfan7roe, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1No. It's their own fault for using wikipedia as the final source rather than a tool to point you in the right direction.

    Wikipedia does not claim to be the last authority, so stop blaming them for your own idiocy.
  • GidsR, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2The deeper you go in Wiki the worse it looks.
    Don't believe me... find a subject you know a huge amount about and try adding something good/useful on the subject and see how long the Wiki Owner of the page let's it stand.
    • steelersfan7roe, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2We care about our pages. Use good sources and relevant info and your information will be kept.
      • RealmDown, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Excellent point. I sincerely wish it wasn't a LOT less true than you believe.
  • phreak79, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6I don't suppose it helps that Wikipedia holds the #1 spot for a vast number of keywords on Google, so it can be hard to avoid them when researching a topic.
  • GoKings, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2*****... We can do far more research now than anyone ever could. For example, with a digitized book or a journal, you just hit ctrl+f and find whatever terms you want. The information we have access to is far greater, and more importantly... quicker. This allows us to do a report with more research that I can do in a couple of hours, than someone going through the library could in a week.
    • RealmDown, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2The problem is this ease of access has led to sloppy habits, no cross checks, and "copy paste" mentality leading to worthless results, regardless of effort.

      "Cntl-f" is NOT a replacement for being thorough.
  • chris9902, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research

    did I just blow your mind?
  • hootie233, on 06/24/2008, -2/+3lies, i made it through my last 3 years of high school's ap classes, and first year of college almost strictly on wiki and it has never come back to bite me in the ass
    • RealmDown, on 06/24/2008, -2/+3Your admission of being a lousy researcher (border line cheat) says as much about your institute of learning as it does about you.

      Considering how this shaped your ethics, I'll opine it will bite you in the ass more than you know.
      • spwpi10, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1His ethics? Instead of looking through dozens of books on specific information he used a publicly edited encyclopedia to get everything in one place. The information is there for a reason, so people can look it up and use it, not all of it is accurate but if he can pass his classes on it he made the right choice. Sorry grandpa, us kids are just learning how to make the best use out of ALL the sources of information available to us, some of us still read books.
        • RealmDown, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3He didn't use "all." Re-read his comment. He used Wiki "almost strictly."

  • Agger, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2If you don't know how to use wikipedia, don't
  • TheMachine1, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1As some one who reads a lot pharmacological studies I can vouch for the idea that a very high percent of the studies are flawed and the direct opposite of their conclusions could be reality. Which roughly means that if I wrote a wikipedia article that was fully referenced by those studies it might be only about 50% truth anyway.

    Any well written research paper by a student would have a large number of sources for every single point. Teachers do not require that much detail. One lame ass source is enough. Which as mention before maybe no better than an unreferenced wikipedia article. Teachers need to be honest enough to admit that most primary sources of information are also no better than wikipedia.
  • boomerang42, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1Bull. *****.
  • prleet, on 06/24/2008, -7/+1Here is a solution: NO ONE SHOULD BE USING OR CITING ANY SITES THAT HAVE XXXXXX.COM at the end. ITS THAT SIMPLE!

    And anyone that uses .COM sites to cite, should be automatically failed(period).
    • Simonft, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2www.wikipedia.org
    • Ganja420, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1.RU AND .SU ARE OK THO

      Президент Российской Федерации. Официальный сайт
      «Необходимо повышение устойчивости национальной экономики на основе совершенствования её структуры, внедрения инноваций, осуществления модернизации в сфере оказания социальных услуг, улучшения транспортной, энергетической и финансовой инфраструктуры, формирования благоприятной среды для предпринимательской деятельности».
  • fractalman, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Parents are the reason our children are failing. Parents are responsible for their children until they are grown up. Parents have shirked their responsibility on day care and the school system.
    The Internet is a tool, just like books. If the school system can't or won't teach children how to do proper research, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children.
    If parents aren't willing to raise their own kids, maybe they shouldn't have them. Parents, it's time to stop blaming others for your own inadequacies.
  • grungegbunny, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Books 2.0
  • ElAssoWipo, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Wikipedia didn't make kids stupid, they just seem even dumber now that it's available.

    It's an easy answer that idiots use. The problem isn't the source of info, it's the teaching and the students. We don't teach methodology anymore. The kids don't even get why wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information. And the kids are just plain lazy and uninterested. That's why they just copypasta everything without even checking anything. They do their paper like a chore, half-assed as much as possible so it won't take precious time away from playing videogames intendend for 12 year olds.

    Copying encyclopedias 20 years ago was the exact same principle. Encyclopedias are for the most part outdated when they come out, missing tons of info and only represent a single opinion on any given subject. They are made for complete ignorants, not scholars.

    And the library... It probably won't exist in 20 years. There's no difference between a text in a book and a text on a screen. The library is just an outdated solution.

    You could put all public library books in one single database, the cost of operation once the reproduction is done would be ridiculously low.

    The medium can never be the problem.

    And WTF is up with this text box jumping all over the place? I can't even see what I'm typing. ***** Digg.
    • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1If there was a way to separate all the user pages and editor bureaucracy out of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would be more of just a medium.
  • wayyy, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Actually, some would argue that the only reason kids are NOT failing today is because of Wikipedia.
  • mentallyinhell, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Wikipedia is a great starting point, but don't use it for a whole paper.
  • dpollitt, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1I've heard this argument way too many times. Stop being old - old people.
  • crispusattucks, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0Wikipedia makes no false claims about what it is. When we engage in a conversation with our friends, while we trust them we recognize that their information can be fallible, the same is true for wikipedia. It is a convenient and accessible resource and while it should not be blindly trusted that does not mean it should not be used.
  • Tribunis, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1The Scottish Parent Teacher Council just needs something to blame for their bad teachings.
  • Dzonatas, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Jimbo Wales changed the motto from "anybody can edit" to "any *reasonable* person can edit"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/2 ...
  • wontstoptalking, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1"Wikipedia is a website where anyone can write anything. So you know it's always right."

    -Michael Scott
  • burninlover, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I just use Wikipedia as a starting point. After that I use online journals, digitized books (if I can find them) and actually going to the library. It is easy finding information online, but it is nice to have a book every once in a while.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.