  Esteban Member Username: Esteban Post Number: 86 Registered: 10-2003 |
I have it from a close friend that the Dearborn School system has banned online student access to Wikipedia! In a recent study, Wikipedia was shown to have an overall greater accuracy, as far as information is concerned: http://www.nature.com/nature/j ournal/v438/n7070/full/438900a .html I sure am glad my son isn't being uneducated in that backwater educational system! | ||
Deteamster Member Username: Deteamster Post Number: 118 Registered: 07-2007 |
Thank goodness for Dearborn Public Schools and their push towards better scholarship. Wikipedia is great for trivia, like finding out the history of your favorite Futurama character, but a running joke among any semi-serious scholar. Sad story is, when kids get to college nowadays, they don't know where to turn for heavy duty research when they can't use their beloved wikipedia. We have LIBRARIES; scholarly journals; .edu, .gov sites, etc. Anyone with access to a computer can edit most wikipedia sites, thus it doesn't matter what some "survey" says. All these other sources must go through heavy peer reviews, at the very least. A good example: one time I needed to figure out the spelling of some Ottoman sultan's name. So I turned to wikipedia. Someone had changed the Ottoman Empire entry to: "Hi I'm shelly I lick amanda's c_it" or something of that extent. I learned my lesson. These kids will learn something about actually having to do real research and using credible sources, not to mention learning to put some effort into their research, rather than "wiki" everything. By the by, I do research for the Detroit Historical Society. If I ever cited wiki, I'd likely be fired. These kids, including your son, ought to know that. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6062 Registered: 10-2003 |
I can understand banning it from use as citations for a report, but Wikipedia pages usually always have citations of their owns which provide very credible links to actual excellent citations (i.e. news articles, online encyclopedias...) I'd never site information directly from Wikipedia, but I'd site citied Wikipedia information, if that makes sense. | ||
Mortgageking Member Username: Mortgageking Post Number: 138 Registered: 12-2006 |
If I were citing I'd cite cited Wikipedia citations as well, however, I would not cite the site as my source. (Message edited by mortgageking on June 25, 2008) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1883 Registered: 02-2006 |
Bad move to ban access. Good move to ban students from using Wikipedia as a source, which schools have been doing for years. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6064 Registered: 10-2003 |
Exactly. Using Wiki as a source is completely unacceptable, but banning access is too much. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 341 Registered: 08-2007 |
I think it is OK to check Wikipedia out just to get an overview of a topic. I have found that in a lot of cases, it does give a good overview. But I do not accept a Wikipedia citation in any of my classes. There are many other citations that are no good, too. | ||
Richard_bak Member Username: Richard_bak Post Number: 27 Registered: 04-2008 |
>>I sure am glad my son isn't being uneducated in that backwater educational system!<< Hmmm...my daughters are products of the Dearborn public schools. At the very least they can write grammatically correct sentences. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 722 Registered: 04-2006 |
My three cents: 1. Does everything done on a computer in a school have to be scholarly research? Kids are naturally curious, and there is no better place for curious people than Wikipedia. 2. It's stupid to pore through reams of only mildly-relevant articles in a journal database when all you really wanted was one quick, easily-accessible fact. 3. Does Dearborn really think their kids are too dumb to understand a simple "don't cite this as a source?" | ||
Yaktown Member Username: Yaktown Post Number: 367 Registered: 02-2006 |
Hooray for rumours! | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6065 Registered: 10-2003 |
Bear, while I'd take the risk of letting them access it, I don't think this has anything to do with being dumb and more to do with being honest. Internet plagiarism has become quite a problem, even among so professionals (i.e. journalists lifting entire articles and attributing those to themselves). | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1398 Registered: 12-2006 |
Well, ironically, we're displaying the basic problem with Wikipedia! Here's what the very first post on this thread started with: "I have it from a close friend that the Dearborn School system has banned online student access to Wikipedia!" Since that post, we're all talking about it as though it's a fact, which we have no idea about, since it is just a poster telling us what his unnamed friend told him (and since we don't know who the friend is or whether or where he got the information, we have no idea of its reliability). That's exactly the lower bound on the quality of the information on Wikipedia. I don't let my students use it as a source, though of course I have no objection if they use it to find credible sources, which is one of the very useful things about it. But so far we're discussing water. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 5662 Registered: 12-2005 |
There's a lower lower bound at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/M ain_Page.  | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1887 Registered: 02-2006 |
For years and years, it has been unacceptable to use even print encyclopedias in any respectable scholarly work above 8th grade. They are foundations for research, but are not research themselves. Wikipedia should be treated the same way. It should not be banned. If this is anything more than a rumor, that is. I would place the probability at: 25%: True 35%: Total false rumor 40%: Poorly-played game of "telephone," and actually Wikipedia was officially forbidden as a source in papers | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4861 Registered: 10-2003 |
Shame on Dearborn schools if this is true. My little birdies told me that it was due to some 'pornography' in some entries. Gotta protect the kiddies, as if they really could. If that is the case they better also ban the Bible lest the kiddies stumble across this porn about Lot and his daughters..., "One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There isn’t a man anywhere in this entire area for us to marry. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will sleep with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father." So that night they got him drunk, and the older daughter went in and slept with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again. "The next morning the older daughter said to her younger sister, "I slept with our father last night. Let’s get him drunk with wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him. That way our family line will be preserved." So that night they got him drunk again, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. As before, he was unaware of her lying down or getting up again. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father." (Genesis 19:23-25, 30-36 , NLT) | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4862 Registered: 10-2003 |
It is a hard to swallow fact, for some, that 99 times out of 100, probably more, the collective knowledge of the crowd is is smarter than any one egghead. When I hear pooh-poohing of Wikipedia, do I not also hear overtones of 'I had to struggle though university writing my dissertation about some obscure topic and it shouldn't be this easy'? [All who I suspect now secretly run to Wikipedia all the time.] Wikipedia is a living item, not some aging tome on a shelf. Every article is open dispute and many are. If it is BS and allowed to stand the mob will take it's protest elsewhere on the web and point out the error. This is unlike some parts of the ivy towers where pomp, prestige and ego have many time trumped the truth. It mimics the message board culture in many ways. How many times has some thread began far from the truth only to be eventually set straight? LOL - I know, having been corrected several times myself. What a great resource. Encyclopedia Britannica who? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1399 Registered: 12-2006 |
Lowell, 1. It's a public school, therefore the Bible is more or less already banned. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, just that it's so. 2. Generally when we in the ed biz assign papers to students, I'm talking k-12 and undergrads at college, we're asking them to look up info in the realm of "generally accepted truth at the moment" and report on it in some way. Such is not always truly accurate, but a snapshot of what we think is true right now. Wikipedia, like much of the Internet, is "all publisher and no editor", which to me makes its information slightly more suspect than that which has been edited by someone in a position of editorial authority. That's not to say such people abuse the authority; they do all the time. But for a student to say "I read X on Wikipedia" or "I read X somewhere on the Internet" has slightly less weight to me than if that student said "I overheard X at the barber shop". At least he might know the guy who said the thing at the barber shop. I agree it's a great resource, but it's a starting point for study, not an ending point. By the way I still haven't seen any information to substantiate the basic claim that started this thread. Did someone read it on Wikipedia? Just wondering. | ||
Esteban Member Username: Esteban Post Number: 87 Registered: 10-2003 |
As to the voracity of my claim that the Dearborn School system has banned Wikipedia, a quick phone call to said institution by anyone posting on this board will confirm my statement. | ||
Mortgageking Member Username: Mortgageking Post Number: 139 Registered: 12-2006 |
I just called, they said they were closed for the summer and that I should go to bed. | ||
Redwingz Member Username: Redwingz Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2007 |
Deteamster is so right. Wiki is NOT an encyclopedia with any factual base. Like he pointed out, great for trivia, but in reality, it cannot be relied upon because there is no accountability for accuracy of the "claims" that are listed. Stick to the facts instead of some open-line place that let's anyone edit their content and post it as fact. | ||
Redwingz Member Username: Redwingz Post Number: 16 Registered: 09-2007 |
Professorscott, Of course it's true. I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it says without a doubt it's fact. Look it up if you don't believe me. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1400 Registered: 12-2006 |
"Voracity"? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1401 Registered: 12-2006 |
Redwingz, Nicely done. Similar to the fifth-grade claim that "gullible" is not in Webster's dictionary. Esteban, Don't make us do the work if you have a source. If someone in the school system told you this, tell us who. Otherwise don't blame us if we're skeptical. Also, one cannot telephone a school district; you have to talk to a person. Who can confirm this claim of yours? The person who answers the phone at an organization is rarely in the loop about such details. Prof. Scott | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 8275 Registered: 11-2004 |
I totally agree that wikipedia is a nice start to doing research but its credibility can be touchy at best. Does anyone remember when the Red Wings were playing the Colorado Avalanche this last NHL season and what wikipedia had said about the Avalanche? Well, someone had gone into wikipedia and totally re-wrote the page for the Avalanche. There were hilarious claims of them being a woman's hockey team, Claude Lemieux was a turtle, and all sorts of funny inaccurate "facts" about them. The stuff was up there for a good chunk of the day until the powers that be at wiki returned it back to its factual format. Any resource that counts on its community to contribute isn't exactly the bastion of accuracy obviously. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 6787 Registered: 11-2003 |
Dearborn, Michigan. 2006 population, 92,382. A city in Southeastern Michigan, just West of Detroit and adjacent to it. Incorporated in 1927. Home of Ford Rouge plant of 1917 where at one time 120,000 workers were employed. The Ford Model T and the Mustang were two famous Rouge products. Dearborn is on the Rouge River. Today, the popular Ford F-150 truck is made here. Birthplace of Henry Ford. He opened the Ford Airport in Nov., 1924. On Feb. 15, 1926, from Ford Airport USA first airmail service was established to Cleveland. Ford Airport closed on Oct. 21, 1947. The Dearborn Inn opened as America's first airport hotel on July 1, 1931. The airport site is now Ford's Proving Grounds. Besides Henry Ford, Bob Seger and Bill Freehan are native sons. About 30,000 people in the city are Arab-Americans so it's sometimes called "Dearbornistan." This population mainly comes from Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. From Wikipedia. jjaba, research dept. | ||
Redwingz Member Username: Redwingz Post Number: 17 Registered: 09-2007 |
Professorscott, I've done enough research on Wiki to know what it's all about. Use your favorite search engine to look up Dr. Robert L. Park, Professor of Physics, University of Maryland. Dr. Park is the author of "Voodoo Science, The Road From Foolishness to Fraud". He is an outspoken critic of "Wiki" style sites. I, for one, am not fooled by something just because it's posted on-line. | ||
Esteban Member Username: Esteban Post Number: 88 Registered: 10-2003 |
My Wikipedia not being accessible to Dearborn students claim; my source a life-long friend in the Dearborn School system. Said person is eminently well situated to give reliable information, but has asked to be kept anonymous for reasons of job security. I feel confident that someone will come forth in a relatively short period of time will confirm my statement. BTW, I've posted on this site for five years and if you check my record you will find that I'm not in the habit of making wild claims. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 242 Registered: 03-2008 |
FWIW, I wouldn't let school-age children have access to Wikipedia if I didn't have the ability to peer over their shoulders during every friggin' second they were on the site. Not only is the site not particularly accurate, it is chock-full of "adult" information which most of you supporters would be mighty pissed to find your kids were studying during the school day. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 888 Registered: 04-2006 |
according to wikipedia the dearborn schools have banned wikipedia. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 919 Registered: 03-2008 |
Lowell, I have always assumed that the Bible was the reason for many bans based on "sexual" (aka adult) content. Apparently, it is not at all the case anymore. I don't think it ever really was. Sex by many, is simply considered offensive in itself. I really have no clue why so many consider that subject so taboo among any group, let alone the young who really should be learning about the subject in some accuracy and detail. Can one of you please explain this to me. Why is sex so bad? I see no reason for it to even be in that category (the same category of "adult material" that crime and violence fall in). Seriously, can anyone explain this, it baffles me. On another note; I really think it's funny how many experts hate Wikipedia. Majority simply seem to be bothered that they spent a portion of their life and years of income on becoming experts. The plain and simply feel they earned the right to be those experts, and can't stand that their is another place for people to get their information. You know, those experts could be spending their time checking over those articles and contributing to society. The fact that they are so against contributing, makes them questionable in my opinion. |
