What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
145 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+207Wikipedia is a TERTIARY source. It provides a nice general overview to help you understand the subject, but you follow the links in the References section to get actual sources for your paper. I use it to help with my college papers all the time, but I never cite it directly. I follow the links to the primary and secondary sources.
- HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -1/+103Sounds like a high school teacher. My experience with teachers and online resources is that the more derisive and scornful they are, the less computer literate they are. In the CS department of my university, most are unwilling to "accredit" wikipedia at the same level as closed resources, but openly praise it.
But high school teachers are often afraid of anything that isn't in their 30 year old teaching manual. - Wolf451man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+99My daughter gets 15 points taken off her current event reports if she uses an online source.
Now, I'm sorry, but a PRINTED Newspaper is at LEAST yesterday's source, thus NOT current. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+79My interpersonal communication textbook cited Wikipedia.
I thought that was really funny. XD - aboutblank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+63Even an online source that isn't Wikipedia? That's insane.
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+52Tree haters!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47Word to that.
Maybe it's just me, but every female teacher I had that assigned research topics scorned Wikipedia and forbid me to use it. As a consequence, all of them were highly computer illiterate. Even my mother, who IS more computer literate than these folks scorned it.
Most of the computer-literate male teachers I had, however, advocated the use of Wikipedia. My physics teacher, the coolest guy ever, actually demonstrated to us why Wikipedia was probably more accurate than other sources. - Altanar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40@aboutblank: Many schools are like that. My high school would only take online sources that had printed equivalents. There are many people who will never trust an anonymous source on the 'net.
- greendigger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34I agree, but you got to be careful when using information on Wikipedia. Generally, I use it as a great starting point and then move on to cited references or Journal articles. But one thing is for sure, it goes far and beyond the reach of any other Encyclopedias like Britannica, just imagine….will you find all the SIMPSON'S shows on Britannica? NO, but they are there on Wikipedia!!
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28my teacher explained that she wanted us to start reading the paper. That's why we couldn't use online sources. Of course, this was only for that one weekly current event assignment. For everything else, Internet is encouraged.
For instance I used wiki to look up the 75 terms in my AP history class. We had to go into our textbook to find the terms (people, events, and documents) and write them down. Wikipedia was so much faster and gave me a better understanding. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Yes, "many people get into the habit of using just any BOOK as their source"
The Capitalisation is mine.
Could it be possible that the same people that write biased books, go and write biased websites? Quite. - EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Ya, a bunch of morons who think everything on the net is all lies...
But if it is written in a magazine of newspaper it must be right! :rolleyes:
Everything, especially if it is tech related, is usually inaccurate or completely stupid when you find it in the newspaper...just the other day I saw the main headlines of the newspaper for that day, and it was talking about this "new" thing called HDTV. All the numbers they used in the resolution and everything were way off.
...which is just another reason why I do not read any newspapers...that, and the fact that all the news is just stupid crap that tries to scare everyone and think everyone carries a shotgun or everyone on the web is a child molester...
It is somewhat funny when morons try to talk about something they have no clue about(they get everything wrong), and even funnier when other morons think all of it is fact. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Monolith2, you obviously went to the article. DUH factor on you!
- TechnoGuyRob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Hey everyone, this is little Bobby, passing on a message from Michael Jackson:
They're just ignorant. Totally ignorant. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18High School teachers are like everyone else: some are awesome mentors, while others are small, ignorant dinks. Welcome to the world, kid.
- Ovitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Correct. They tried to get information without torturing him.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Most high school teachers I've ever had were complete morons. There were always a few smart ones mixed in but the vast majority are not very intelligent.
- 022A, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Dugg for the irony of a woman calling people computer illiterate.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Next time get her to cite an online peer reviewed journal. I want to see a teacher deduct points for that.
As for most online sources, they simply cannot be trusted. Would you trust 'Bob's Awsome Snake Website' if your daughter was writing a paper on snakes? And it only gets worse for controversial issues, or politics - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Anyone can publish a book nowadays. Most teachers are just ignorant. One of the qualifications to get certified should be to take a 'general understanding' class in which they go over such things as blogs, Wikipedia, the current media state along with books and book publications, etc. and of course a computer class.
- noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Regarding what Monolith2 said; that's not the way I'd have put it; however, the specific attack "Wikipedia is for children and the computer illiterate" is not a common one; so is it really worth our time getting hung up about *one* particular person's *specific* and non-universal complaint about Wikipedia? No.
The other two complaints (accuracy and vandalism) *are* worth addressing, because they reflect concerns that a larger proportion of people- rightly or wrongly- have about Wikipedia.
FWIW, I like Wikipedia and contribute to it, but for academic use a given article *is* only as good as its references. It's not meant to be a primary source, and whilst the "numerous eyeballs" works most of the time, it doesn't always work with lesser-read/edited articles, or even (arguably) with common misconceptions that may make their way into an article. But, as I said, Wikipedia itself states that information should be verifiable, so it's not unreasonable to expect references for non-obvious facts.
Wikipedia is good. Wikipedia is actually bloody good. However, as with any community-based project, there's always the risk of the community becoming insular; of the community becoming more important than the integrity of the project itself, and of wishing to deflect attacks against its "baby", regardless of whether they're legitimate or not. I have respect for Jimbo Wales because he admitted that (in *certain* areas) Wikipedia wasn't up to scratch. Rather than get paranoid about attacks from (e.g.) Britannica, he admitted the fault; which is a good basis to correct it from; NOT one of excessive defensiveness.
As for vandalism, I don't think it's that major a problem from an accuracy point-of-view, although I *have* seen occasional cases of it slipping through the net. It's more a problem from a maintenance perspective; but that's a different kettle of fish. - Wolf451man, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Now, to the article:
President Bush: Well, we just disagree with him. Plus, my job is to protect you. And most American people, if I said [to them] that we had who we think is the mastermind of the 9/11, they would say, “Why don’t you see if you can’t get information without torturing him,” which is what we did.
If the President admitting to torture on NBC isn’t clear-cut enough for you, then perhaps your eyes are closed.
---
Or maybe you should be studying more in ENGLISH class.
The last statement by the President is NOT clear cut.
You read and ASSUME that by "which is what we did" refers to torture.
It can ALSO be read that "which is what we did" refers to "get information without torturing him". - audiofish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's kinda strange how the world wide web was invented to be a world wide INFORMATION RESOURCE yet still people, years later, don't acknowledge it as anything else than a place for myspace and faceparty.
- leinir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Researching a paper on folksonomies for university, i've stumbled across something a lot of people forget when referencing Wikipedia - revisions. When you reference Wikipedia, a lot of people tend to forget that as a wiki, it changes a LOT. Not just once in a while, but sometimes several times per day.
So what you have to do when referencing Wikipedia, is to go to the history tab, and get the url for the actual revision you're using, not just the name of the article. The article might be changed or even deleted, but the history will stay there for prosperity (or at least as long as Wikipedia exists), and as such... the information you referenced will actually be available.
Of course, you want to make sure before you go into your exam to check that the information you referenced has not changed substantially, but at least you will have referenced the source properly ;) - NecoDivad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Reminds me of my English class, only the other way around. My teacher would start every class with a rant against the President, the military, Israel, etc. He also hated Wikipedia. Why is it that there is more discussion about politics in English classes then in...political science classes?
- badken, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14It's a *good* thing that your child's teacher is deducting points for online citations. Until a child develops the critical thinking skills to look for bias and credibility in online sources, it is dangerous to teach them to rely on those sources. Just because you found a current events report on the intertubes doesn't make it true, or current, or an event. Q.E.D: digg.com.
This is not to say that digg isn't a great source of information, nor that online sources in general aren't a great jumping off point for further investigation. But your child's teacher is hardly falling back on their "30 year old teaching manual" (to quote another poster). Rather, they are teaching the kind of thinking skills that your child needs to survive in an age of sensationalism and disinformation. - 500freestyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In the interview cited Bush doesn't admit to torture. He admits to the existance of CIA prisons, but denies they are illegal.
Wikipedia definitely has it's uses, but with papers its used as a starting point. You don't cite it, you use it to get basic background and find out where to look for the deeper information. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wikipedia is a wonderful accomplishment. In the areas I know something about, it is generally quite reliable. Since it started, it's gotten better and better.
In the "hard" sciences in particular, it's very good; in those areas it suffers most for lack of good illustration. In some newer technical areas, it is the ONLY concentrated resource.
It takes time for enough people who care to visit the articles and fix what they know is wrong, figure out what's missing, and blend what's there into one piece. It's happening.
Best of all, definitely, is that it's a *commonwealth* project. Plenty of complainers would love to see it fail for that reason alone. They profit from divisions. They hate accord like they hate peace itself. Screw them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"
As for most online sources, they simply cannot be trusted. Would you trust 'Bob's Awsome Snake Website' if your daughter was writing a paper on snakes? And it only gets worse for controversial issues, or politics"
OK, but the same is true for those ***** tabloid papers in the grocery store checkouts. They're written sources, but they're trash.
Teachers who throw out ALL online sources are hypocrits to the points others have raised, because they're not thinking critically at all. - davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Your math professor is absolutely correct.
Wikipedia is useful in many ways, but not as a valid source in a research paper. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Newspapers are the absolute worst place for technology. I used to read the tech section once and while until I saw the "Tech Advice" guy Giving a Long explanation of Java that had so many innaccuracies that I almost ripped up the paper right then and there. The one that stands out is the statement "Javascript is another Application from Sun Microsystems"
- SystmBetatester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5the teacher is wrong about wikipedia, but this 'kid' is a dumbass. if you listen to every word pres bush says you understand it better.
“Why don’t you see if you can’t get information WITHOUT torturing him,” which is what we did [NOT TORTURING].
so as he says: "If the President admitting to torture on NBC isn’t clear-cut enough for you, then perhaps your eyes are closed."
he shouldnt have thrown in his stupid political views in a wikipedia topic, you got it only half right
well my eyes are open, and my IQ must be higher too.... lame digg topic - wozley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Without Wikipedia, I'd never know the history of condoms, the whole story of Half-Life, or that Ron White really didn't die!
Wikipedia! It's the future! - ZacT1984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have had three instructors at my local Private College allow Wikipedia be used as a source. Of course what I researched was not something controversial but general knowledge for Western Geography and other social sciences. I think as time progresses, colleges and other institutions of learning will have to allow more and more electronic sources, especially since more library's are now embracing electronic formats. It is cheaper for them to keep 1 CD with every newspaper for the last 50 years then it is for them to physically keep every newspaper for the past 5 years.
Also, can you really trust those who not only write for Wikipedia, but those who write scholarly articles and encyclopedias? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think there should be an "obvious trolling" option under the "bury" menu.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, the word I intended to use was "dinks".
- 0zzy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6My teacher said Dictionary.com is fine for 5th graders, but not for high school students.. :) Ignorance ftw!
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If it wasn't for Wikipedia, I never would have known that "ninja" is, in fact, plural for ninja.
You see? Useful. - qbyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Any proof that his teacher really said that? This is just a spam link to someones blog so they can feel cool about having visitors. His teacher likely did not say that or said it thinking about something else and the author is just trying to stir things up.
LAME - chronodev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is a quote of what one of my Mathematics professor said about why Wikipedia is not allowed as a source in our research papers:
"Wikipedia is like a phonebook. If you have guests coming from out of town and you want to take them to a good restaurant, you don't just open the phone book and choose a restaurant from there. The phonebook might give you some pointers, but you would actually research the restaurants before taking your guests there. In the same way, you can't use Wikipedia as a source in your paper- you can use them to find leads but you have to research those leads by following the references there and checking their validity" - Danin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And what, cite a piece of paper? You have to cite the actual source at some point.
- LeeVal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6My geography teacher uses it, he is nor a child ( i hope ) and isnt computer illiterate
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My, how haughty we've become since entering college.
- Opheicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dugg for ignorant people.
- mrbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The larger part of academia is incredibly hostile toward Wikipedia. I showed the Nature study comparing Wikipedia to Brittanica to one of my teachers. He conferred with the other teachers in his department who basically said, "Well, I guess that means we shouldn't be using Brittanica"
That's unbelievable. - Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wikipedia is great for anyone that wants to learn about anything.....from configuring Bitorrent clients and ports, Firewalls, History etc.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I mean, Where did Dictionary.com get their creditials? THEY don't have a Masters in Useless ***** like I do!
- luvkit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This blog post irritated me. I'm getting really annoyed with political opinions showing up on digg. I turned off that category in my default view, but I tried to leave the political 'news' on. I don't mind information, but I hate inane rants.
Thus guy snuck politics into a wikipedia 'software' topic. It wasn't the right forum. Not only that, but the quote from Bush he used didn't admit to torture. It was like a bad high school paper.
And does anyone else notice that 'wikipedia' is not in digg's dictionary? It tried to correct its spelling. - davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3By "that kind of teacher" I mean an ignorant bitch. Wikipedia is as useful as any other encyclopedia, period. Quoting it in a research paper? Not a good idea.
Uising it to find secondary sources on or to get a basic understanding of any conceivable subject? Definitely. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4His name is 'JockTroll' I'm going to assume that JockTroll is a joke account. (Think Colbert Report). He probably actually thinks the exact opposite of what he's saying, but is showing the Jock perspective ( usually the perspective of ignorance and stupidity ) for humor.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is