I've had some similar experiences with some stats concepts, especially the way concepts surrounding null hypothesis statistical testing is presented. We finally agreed to disagree and have both of our "opinions" represented.
But I teach my students don't believe what you read: look at the references and go to the original literature. But this scares me: if the students can't get links to some original literature, then what I've been teaching them is worthless.... Reckon I'll spend a little more time on the difference between primary and secondary sources. Thanks for the heads-up. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor of Psychology Chair, Department of Behavioral and Health Sciences College of Arts & Sciences Baker University -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Allen Esterson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:02 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] A cautionary tale on Wikipedia > > I'm not one of those who knock Wikipedia, but I do think (as I'm sure > is the general view of TIPSters) that it should be treated with > considerable caution. Here is a cautionary tale from one academic who > set out to edit a Wikipedia page on the basis of his expertise on the > subject: > > I tried to edit the page again. Within 10 seconds I was informed that > my citations to the primary documents were insufficient, as Wikipedia > requires its contributors to rely on secondary sources, or, as my > critic informed me, "published books." Another editor cheerfully > tutored me in what this means: "Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is > 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources > which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or > description of something, Wikipedia will echo that." > > http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ > > The comments on the article are also worth reading. > > One criticism I would make of the author of the article is that he > should have raised the issue on the Discussion ("Talk") page first to > explain what he wanted to change, and why. Alternatively, he could have > left the original wording and added some sentences providing an > alternative view of the topic. Then the fight could begin on a > different footing. :-) > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > [email protected] > http://www.esterson.org > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c90e > 1&n=T&l=tips&o=16058 > or send a blank email to leave-16058- > [email protected] The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=16065 or send a blank email to leave-16065-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
