Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [hardocp] Kids Are Failing, It's All Wikipedia's Fault!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[hardocp] Kids Are Failing, It's All Wikipedia's Fault! - Page 3

post #21 of 132
Wikipedia is MUCH easier so what do you expect? I'm not saying it's necessarily good OR bad... just what do you expect?
The Core
(5 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 Z77 Extreme4 Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 
RAM
32GB 
  hide details  
Reply
The Core
(5 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 Z77 Extreme4 Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 
RAM
32GB 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargate125645 View Post
There's nothing wrong with that requirement. If the 21st century involves not using verifiable sources then it only spells doom for society. People can print whatever they want on the internet. There is nothing wrong with using internet sources as long as those sites have sources, but actual published items should always be referenced.
This is where I disagree, people can print whatever they want in books too. I'm a WWII history buff and I can't tell you the thousands of books out there with completely inaccurate information on them, yet I can reference any one of those and it's considered more valid than an internet article based on interviews with people who were actually bloody there. Yes, you need multiple references on a single point to show it as valid, I can show multiple sources on the net, each one of those with multiple sources and it be just as acurate as referencing multiple book sources. No one is saying you don't need verifiable sources of info, we are saying that books are not inherently more verifiable than internet resources.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 EVGA GTX 980ti Superclock 4x4GB Samsung 1600mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD840 2xMaxtor 200gb RAID0 Customer water cooling with '77 Bonneville rad Windows 10 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Korean 1440p Razor mechanical Corsair TH850W CM Stacker 810 
MouseMouse Pad
Razor Lachesis generic 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 EVGA GTX 980ti Superclock 4x4GB Samsung 1600mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD840 2xMaxtor 200gb RAID0 Customer water cooling with '77 Bonneville rad Windows 10 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Korean 1440p Razor mechanical Corsair TH850W CM Stacker 810 
MouseMouse Pad
Razor Lachesis generic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 132
If books had a CTRL + F key i'd probably read a lot more of the parts that interest me!
post #24 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTERPRISE View Post
Roger that. Books of course have there uses and will for a very long time. However I just do not see the point in sourcing from a book if you can find the same if not more updated information on the internet.

There argument is '' With a book you have to carefully research and spend time on it. This shows you have good research capabilities ETC''

Well why would I want to do that when I can find the correct information 10x faster and I can then better utilize the saved time on something else.
The issue is that people aren't verifying their information. There wouldn't be a problem with Wikipedia if kids didn't take it as the ultimate word. Have you ever tried to click on a Wikipedia source? Quite often they are dead links. The fact of the matter is that published items require credibility and sources. The internet does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro View Post
This is where I disagree, people can print whatever they want in books too. I'm a WWII history buff and I can't tell you the thousands of books out there with completely inaccurate information on them, yet I can reference any one of those and it's considered more valid than an internet article based on interviews with people who were actually bloody there. Yes, you need multiple references on a single point to show it as valid, I can show multiple sources on the net, each one of those with multiple sources and it be just as acurate as referencing multiple book sources. No one is saying you don't need verifiable sources of info, we are saying that books are not inherently more verifiable than internet resources.
Point taken. Books with cited sources, then, as any good source would have. Books aren't automatically taken as fact if they don't support their own words with sources as well. The point still stands.
Edited by stargate125645 - 6/24/08 at 8:10am
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #25 of 132
yeah, internet sites are always being updated.
when a book is written, that's it. it must be re-written to update.

BUT
i think it's safe, when researching something you don't know, to find the same information on multiple sources. just so you're sure it's accurate.

maybe that's why assignments in schools ALWAYS ask for more than just 2-3 sources
Main Baby
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 3.2Ghz Asus 750i P5N-D evga 9800gtx 512mb G.Skill 2x2gb PC-8500 DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
320gb 16mb cache Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 932BW 19" Apevia Warlock - 750 watt 
Case
CoolerMaster 690 
  hide details  
Reply
Main Baby
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 3.2Ghz Asus 750i P5N-D evga 9800gtx 512mb G.Skill 2x2gb PC-8500 DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
320gb 16mb cache Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 932BW 19" Apevia Warlock - 750 watt 
Case
CoolerMaster 690 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 132
I would have respect for wikipedia if it were not so easy to change it. I personally think wikipedia is crap as far as a source goes. I have no problem with people using ACCURATE online sources. I do think that you need to be referencing a journal or two with anything you do to validate that you are not an idiot in what you are presenting in said topic.

As far as I know most libraries have all of their stuff online and you can easily do a search through a library to find a legitimate source then go and pick it up.
Game System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z Asus GTX 980 TI GTX980TI-6GD5 Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Crucial BX100 SSD 1TB LG CDRW/DVDRW Liquid cooled Windows 8.1 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Qnix QX2710 LED Blackwidow Ultimate Battlefield 3 Edition EVGA SuperNova 1300W Rocket Fish Full Tower Custom Modded 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder Razer Exactmat Logitech G900 Headset  
  hide details  
Reply
Game System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z Asus GTX 980 TI GTX980TI-6GD5 Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Crucial BX100 SSD 1TB LG CDRW/DVDRW Liquid cooled Windows 8.1 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Qnix QX2710 LED Blackwidow Ultimate Battlefield 3 Edition EVGA SuperNova 1300W Rocket Fish Full Tower Custom Modded 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder Razer Exactmat Logitech G900 Headset  
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargate125645 View Post
The issue is that people aren't verifying their information. There wouldn't be a problem with Wikipedia if kids didn't take it as the ultimate word. Have you ever tried to click on a Wikipedia source? Quite often they are dead links. The fact of the matter is that published items require credibility and sources. The internet does not.

Point taken. Books with cited sources, then, as any good source would have. Books aren't automatically taken as fact if they don't support their own words with sources as well. The point still stands.
Agreed, wikipedia should not be considered a one stop accurate source, and any kid doing a report that sites wiki alone is an idiot. My problem is that most teachers consider ANY internet source invalid regardless and most book sources as valid regardless. Again, I'm not saying that teachers should take any old internet source at face value, but I don't think anyone should be required to source from books if they can show valid reaserch and verify thier internet sources.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 EVGA GTX 980ti Superclock 4x4GB Samsung 1600mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD840 2xMaxtor 200gb RAID0 Customer water cooling with '77 Bonneville rad Windows 10 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Korean 1440p Razor mechanical Corsair TH850W CM Stacker 810 
MouseMouse Pad
Razor Lachesis generic 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 EVGA GTX 980ti Superclock 4x4GB Samsung 1600mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD840 2xMaxtor 200gb RAID0 Customer water cooling with '77 Bonneville rad Windows 10 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" Korean 1440p Razor mechanical Corsair TH850W CM Stacker 810 
MouseMouse Pad
Razor Lachesis generic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hout17 View Post
I would have respect for wikipedia if it were not so easy to change it. I personally think wikipedia is crap as far as a source goes. I have no problem with people using ACCURATE online sources. I do think that you need to be referencing a journal or two with anything you do to validate that you are not an idiot in what you are presenting in said topic.

As far as I know most libraries have all of their stuff online and you can easily do a search through a library to find a legitimate source then go and pick it up.
There are people that check the changes. Any changes made get reviewed so it's not as easy as you imply. If the sources listed at the bottom of Wikipedia or reputable then there should be no problem with using Wikipedia. I think the point of this article is that students take Wikipedia to be entirely factual without verifying the sources, as should be done anyway. This is a common problem with how people use internet sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro View Post
Agreed, wikipedia should not be considered a one stop accurate source, and any kid doing a report that sites wiki alone is an idiot. My problem is that most teachers consider ANY internet source invalid regardless and most book sources as valid regardless. Again, I'm not saying that teachers should take any old internet source at face value, but I don't think anyone should be required to source from books if they can show valid reaserch and verify thier internet sources.
I agree. See above.
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 132
wikipedia is watched over by people very well...its definitely not going to cause kids to fail
The Dark Knight
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 3.2 EVGA 780i A1 HD 5850 4 x 2 gb gskill ddr2-1066 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Sandisk SSD Raptor X WD Caviar ASUS 20x DVD-RW 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win7 Pro 64bit Westinghouse 22" Logitec G11 Rosewill 950 watt 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 900 Logitec G9 Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry Textbook 
  hide details  
Reply
The Dark Knight
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 3.2 EVGA 780i A1 HD 5850 4 x 2 gb gskill ddr2-1066 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Sandisk SSD Raptor X WD Caviar ASUS 20x DVD-RW 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win7 Pro 64bit Westinghouse 22" Logitec G11 Rosewill 950 watt 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 900 Logitec G9 Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry Textbook 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 132
The failure is not in students citing wiki, etc., but rather in not providing them with good analytical and logic reasoning--instead of them citing some random webpage as a source, make them analyze the situation and ask themselves if it's likely credible info--which, from the classes I've TA'd for undergrads in the last few years, is what's missing. That being said, in the classes that I teach, we do not allow the students to use wikipedia as a reference because it's not a scientifically peer-reviewed source (the students are using it in upper-division chem lab reports). Department requirements are that citations must be from scientific peer-reviewed sources (an outdated practice as, just like other areas, even scientific journals with peer-review are full of BS and inaccuracies).

That being said, I saw a recent evaluation of wikipedia, and it turned out that its accuracy is in 99% agreement with the Encyclopedia Britannica for articles more than 5 years old. It's the newer, controversial topics are the ones that one must read and take with a grain of salt as there are fewer sources to cross-reference for accuracy.

The first place I go to learn about a topic I'm not familiar with is wikipedia (well, technically google, but then the first result on google is by-and-large a wiki link, LOL).
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [hardocp] Kids Are Failing, It's All Wikipedia's Fault!