doc wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: > > >> Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school >> textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, >> children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being >> taught how to judge their reliability. >> >> > > Yes, at its best, Wikipedia is better referenced. But the rest of the > Wikipedia promotional comparison does not follow. > > Children's textbooks are not without referencing because evil > educationalists want to suppress other views, thus giving wikipedia a > new mission of liberating oppression. Children's textbooks are basic, > because that's where Children start. There are libraries - free to > Children - full of well referenced books. > There are certainly some false dichotomies flying around here - utterly typical of discussions of education, I might say. Reference works (such as WP) are not meant to displace textbooks, anyway. Critical skills run in parallel to straight learning: sometimes they supplement learning, and at other times (IMX) they can get in the way (but that is more with adult learners). Providing references on a per-fact basis (as WP's online style encourages) is not providing a bibliography of full scope. And so on.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
