Comments on: Two quick points about Wikipedia http://www.profhacker.com/2009/08/10/two-quick-points-about-wikipedia/ Tips, tutorials, and commentary on pedagogy, productivity, and technology in higher education. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:08:50 -0400 hourly 1 By: Wikipedia for students « Get Net Savvy http://www.profhacker.com/2009/08/10/two-quick-points-about-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-5048 Wikipedia for students « Get Net Savvy Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:09:27 +0000 http://www.profhacker.com/?p=255#comment-5048 <p>[...] to understand how to read discussion pages and history, how to judge the reliability of a page, and how to cite the exact version of the page they looked at. One of the best guides for students on how to use [...]</p> [...] to understand how to read discussion pages and history, how to judge the reliability of a page, and how to cite the exact version of the page they looked at. One of the best guides for students on how to use [...]

]]> By: An Easy Way to Teach Citations - ProfHacker.com http://www.profhacker.com/2009/08/10/two-quick-points-about-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1787 An Easy Way to Teach Citations - ProfHacker.com Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:38:17 +0000 http://www.profhacker.com/?p=255#comment-1787 <p>[...] I generally take two different approaches: First, with all students I encourage the use of tools such as Zotero, to automate the management of references and notes as they work their way through college.  That’s more of a long-term solution.  And, with all students I emphasize the importance of providing readers an easy-to-read paper and with the ability to follow up on your sources.  (This is why my favorite feature in Wikipedia is the “link to a permanent version of this page.”) [...]</p> [...] I generally take two different approaches: First, with all students I encourage the use of tools such as Zotero, to automate the management of references and notes as they work their way through college.  That’s more of a long-term solution.  And, with all students I emphasize the importance of providing readers an easy-to-read paper and with the ability to follow up on your sources.  (This is why my favorite feature in Wikipedia is the “link to a permanent version of this page.”) [...]

]]> By: Logan http://www.profhacker.com/2009/08/10/two-quick-points-about-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Logan Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:55:22 +0000 http://www.profhacker.com/?p=255#comment-73 <p>I don't disagree on any particular point.</p> I don’t disagree on any particular point.

]]> By: Jason B. Jones http://www.profhacker.com/2009/08/10/two-quick-points-about-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Jason B. Jones Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:36:17 +0000 http://www.profhacker.com/?p=255#comment-70 <p>Right--the post is about people who single out Wikipedia vs. other general reference works. (I.e., "it's ok if you use Britannica, but not Wikipedia." And I've met many people who say this.)</p> <p>After all, there are <em>many</em> other types of assignments than research papers, and I would hope that students would still cite in them.</p> Right–the post is about people who single out Wikipedia vs. other general reference works. (I.e., “it’s ok if you use Britannica, but not Wikipedia.” And I’ve met many people who say this.)

After all, there are many other types of assignments than research papers, and I would hope that students would still cite in them.

]]> By: Logan http://www.profhacker.com/2009/08/10/two-quick-points-about-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-64 Logan Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:55:55 +0000 http://www.profhacker.com/?p=255#comment-64 <p>Brian Croxall, above, is right. In Middle School we were taught that general reference materials make poor sources for research papers. If necessary and encyclopedia can be used to verify a mundane fact: year, geography, name, etc. However, to make meaningful arguments and in depth analysis, Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, will not give a writers the tools necessary to compose a compelling piece. <i>This</i> is the argument instructors should be giving their students against Wikipedia (if they feel the need to make them) not that its not a "good" source, just that it's not an effective one.</p> Brian Croxall, above, is right. In Middle School we were taught that general reference materials make poor sources for research papers. If necessary and encyclopedia can be used to verify a mundane fact: year, geography, name, etc. However, to make meaningful arguments and in depth analysis, Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, will not give a writers the tools necessary to compose a compelling piece. This is the argument instructors should be giving their students against Wikipedia (if they feel the need to make them) not that its not a “good” source, just that it’s not an effective one.

]]> By: Brian Croxall http://www.profhacker.com/2009/08/10/two-quick-points-about-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Brian Croxall Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:14:19 +0000 http://www.profhacker.com/?p=255#comment-59 <p>The other concern I have about citing from Wikipedia in assignments is that it is an encyclopedia. I tell my students that I don't care that it is online or that it is collaboratively written (almost all encyclopedias are, after all). But general reference sources do not a research paper make, and <em>that's</em> why the Wikipedia needs to be used with caution.</p> The other concern I have about citing from Wikipedia in assignments is that it is an encyclopedia. I tell my students that I don’t care that it is online or that it is collaboratively written (almost all encyclopedias are, after all). But general reference sources do not a research paper make, and that’s why the Wikipedia needs to be used with caution.

]]>