@mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com
2026-01-02 21:28 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 2026-01-02 21:56
Growing up, pretty much all our hick schools had were encyclopedias; when wikipedia showed up it felt like they were just against the ease of it’s use. Smarter kids would still use the sources cited in Wikipedia, but teachers hated when you referenced a research paper because they couldn’t find it.
-
@Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2026-01-02 22:38
I disagree. The problem was always teachers being afraid of technology. The whole point of a paper is to show that you know the material. If you write a paper and read an entire synopsis of the material and have to explain it in a way that improves not only your reading comprehension but also your writing skills, is that not the entire point of education?
-
@thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 2026-01-02 22:49
Wow, I can’t believe that you are getting some flack for this. Numerous times I’ve read a Wikipedia article, followed the citation, only to discover that the Wikipedia contributor had cherry-picked from a paper, giving a misleading summary.
-
@Minaltaz@sh.itjust.works 2026-01-03 08:32
The issue is not that Wikipedia is wrong, unreliable, superficial or not worth citing, the issue is Wikipedia is not a source. Contrary to what schools teach for some reason, the ultimate goal of citing sources it to tell where the information comes from, not where one found it. By nature, Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia doesn’t create or analyse information, it just compiles it. No information can originate from Wikipedia, so Wikipedia is never the source of anything. The primary and secondary sources at the bottom of the page are.