Yet another good reason why conscientious teachers forbid their students from using Wikipedia as a source. There is more, of course: if your subject becomes 'sensitive' to the PC feelings of the administrators or some nebulous and unidentified/unidentifiable portion of the 'community', it is locked so it cannot be changed. Then, regardless of how wrong the article is, it cannot be updated, corrected or even discussed. Most interesting is that many of the articles preserved, as it were, in bronze, are defamatory, like "Tea Party", "Birthers", "Deniers"etc. It makes no difference that the persons supposedly named by the article are incorrectly described: the articles are protected by god-like powers to ensure that those people never have a chance to present an opposing view.
Couple that with the poor excuse for scholarship that goes into the articles and the hurdles present to prevent any real scholarship from showing up (even provisionally) and you have a recipe for a useless media. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Roman Turovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Wikipedia has strict rules against Original Research, > all information must be reliably sourced to scholarly 3rd parties. > So in the contest beteen Grove and Monica the former would still trump > the latter. > RT > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
