Wikipedia vandalism copied by research websites

meghatronic · 28 Nov 2010 at 17:44

Amp34 said:
GCSE and below I assume? In which case it doesn't really matter. Anyone at A-Level and especially degree/post grad level using any unverified website as a reference should be shot...

I'd say roughly one half of students should therefore be shot.

Amp34 · 28 Nov 2010 at 18:12

meghatronic said:
I'd say roughly one half of students should therefore be shot.

A-level and/or degree? Personally it was drummed into me a A-level grade that wiki is not to be used as a source, let alone degree level. Blame the teachers/lecturers if students are still using it, a decent teacher would make sure they didn't. We would have been marked down for using it...

Dj_Jestar · 28 Nov 2010 at 18:25

Amp34 said:
A-level and/or degree? Personally it was drummed into me a A-level grade that wiki is not to be used as a source, let alone degree level. Blame the teachers/lecturers if students are still using it, a decent teacher would make sure they didn't. We would have been marked down for using it...

Which is a ridiculous thing to say as it entirely relies upon the teach to know, which a lot won't.

meghatronic · 28 Nov 2010 at 18:51

Amp34 said:
A-level and/or degree? Personally it was drummed into me a A-level grade that wiki is not to be used as a source, let alone degree level. Blame the teachers/lecturers if students are still using it, a decent teacher would make sure they didn't. We would have been marked down for using it...

You said, "Anyone at A-Level and especially degree/post grad level using any unverified website as a reference should be shot...".

Over half of the work I've marked has "unverified" websites.

Tefal · 28 Nov 2010 at 19:17

Dj_Jestar said:
You've missed the point. To follow on with the example in the OP, any of those sites now in the google results can be cited as a source on the Wikipedia article. Yet those sites' source is the (vandalized) Wikipedia article. A site titled www.african-americaninventors.org would be seen as a reputable source by many students.

only if they have a diabolically bad teacher/lecturer.

Dj_Jestar · 28 Nov 2010 at 19:54

Or just a teacher that doesn't know Wikipedia is an unreliable source. That doesn't make them diabolical, and is an easy enough mistake to make.

Tefal · 28 Nov 2010 at 19:57

Dj_Jestar said:
Or just a teacher that doesn't know Wikipedia is an unreliable source. That doesn't make them diabolical, and is an easy enough mistake to make.

if students are citing unreferenced websites in their work the teacher should know that is wrong and put a stop to it.

Cosimo · 28 Nov 2010 at 23:22

Tefal said:
if students are citing unreferenced websites in their work the teacher should know that is wrong and put a stop to it.

.... and if the teacher doesn’t know then teacher can't. Round and round we go.

Tefal · 28 Nov 2010 at 23:26

simulatorman said:
.... and if the teacher doesn’t know then teacher can't. Round and round we go.

Surely the teacher should know when he checks their references/bibliography and see random uncited website?

Cosimo · 28 Nov 2010 at 23:37

Tefal said:
Surely the teacher should know when he checks their references/bibliography and see random uncited website?

But only if whatever they have written has a reference section or bibliography and an awful lot hasn’t.

Tefal · 29 Nov 2010 at 00:28

simulatorman said:
But only if whatever they have written has a reference section or bibliography and an awful lot hasn’t.

Which would be a massive mark reduction/0/fail in most level + courses.

dowie · 29 Nov 2010 at 01:09

iviv said:
Not always. As mentioned in the OP, someone edits something into wikipedia, some news website researcher sees it, takes it as being fact, and posts an article including the 'fact' and then wikipedia uses that posting as the source.

Which is why you check the sources... not just confirm that a source exists.

If the source turns out to be some random website then that in itself isn't a reliable source and one that also would require checking. If the only sources for the 'fact' in question are Wikipedia and some random websites (as per the OP) then you don't have any valid sources backing up the 'fact'.

guyfawkes5 · 29 Nov 2010 at 02:23

Dj_Jestar said:
Or just a teacher that doesn't know Wikipedia is an unreliable source. That doesn't make them diabolical, and is an easy enough mistake to make.

Still an extremely irresponsible one, arguments about reliability aside if a student progresses onto 'real' academia with the same assumptions then this could lay them in a lot of trouble with their college, possibly even being kicked out.

Teachers are generally taught some basic critical thinking during the course of qualifying. It doesn't take mental backflips to figure out that students should either be discouraged from using an online encyclopedia that relies entirely on user-generated content or taught about proper sourcing techniques themselves, which secondary school is not necessarily the place to do.