This is the state of our education system -- even the teachers are brainwashed. Wikipedia has *not* been proven time and again to be as reliable as any other encyclopedia on the market. That's just a myth. There was one highly-publicized -- but deliberately flawed -- survey of experts by Nature's news team, which still found that Wikipedia was 34% more error-riddled than Encyclopedia Britannica. Another study found Wikipedia's articles about the 100 U.S. senators to be intentionally vandalized about 6.8% of the time. Another study by the University of Minnesota found the likelihood of finding a "damaged view" on a Wikipedia article to have increased over FIFTEEN TIMES in a three-year period.

Recently, I looked up "Two shot" (a film technique) on Wikipedia. Read what it said for about a year and a half:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_shot&diff=410578884&oldid=317002942

It's estimated that article was viewed over 40,000 times in that state, without anyone ever asking how you get "3.5" people in a cinematic scene.

Wikipedia is a joke, and if teachers want their students to do "research" at the city dump, then I want my student telling their teachers -- straight to their faces -- "No thanks, I would rather do my research at a safer, more reputable place."

Thanks for this. Some people like to rag on Wikipedia for some early errors, but I find myself going back to it repeatedly. It covers so many topics that no other independent source covers. When there are other sources, Wikipedia often has the most objective, comprehensive and up-to-date entries, having been updated even to reflect that day’s breaking news. The suggestion shared by Mario Miranda in the article to have students follow up with the sources at the end of the entry is a great one. It’s helpful for us at the earlier grades to know what the high school teachers are expecting of students using this site. Want to learn more? Check the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia.

It is also great to watch leading Wikipedians discuss whether or not it's okay to welcome avowed pedophiles into the editing community:

http://www.webcitation.org/5rgUllAJf

Yes, Wikipedia is such a wonderful place for high school students!

Sorry, I've reached my breaking point. It's great that Patch is devoting so much "ink" to education, but isn't it time to actually report on what is going on in our local schools? How well are our schools performing? Are the schools successfully closing the achievement gap for ESL and low income students? How is the district and schools responding to the complaints made on Patch that they are unwelcoming to parents who have high academic expectations for their kids? What are budget cuts doing in the schools, especially since the parcel tax failed? What is the effect of the new policy on intra-district transfers? What new school contruction projects are in the pipeline with the $1+ billion that the district is getting from local taxpayers? How violent/dangerous are our schools, compared to other local cities? Etc. Please. No more fluff articles like this one, and no more articles about educational theories that have nothing to with with local schools.

Grumpster, The media has devoted plenty of “ink” to the issues you raise, which is perhaps why you are aware of them. Much less attention has been paid to the educational practices needed to address them. The way to improve the education of our students - including ESL, low income, and those whose parents have high expectations - is to look for the best ways to learn at school and at home. Understanding that research projects are as much about developing a critical eye toward the sources you use as they are about the subject you are investigating is very much the type of thing we need to talk about if we want our students to excel. Restating the problems several times over will not.

When I was interviewing young engineers for jobs (about 5 years ago), I'd ask them to research an unfamiliar technology and write about it. They'd have an hour to reasearch/write, and at least half of them used wikipedia as a primary source. At the time I was appalled (because of the lack of reliability of the information) but I have softened that stance somewhat. Now I see wikipedia as a good starting point for gathering ideas and information--but that information still has to be vetted elsewhere. I also see it as a generation-gap thing; young people rely on it and older people are more skeptical. I think it's great that Mr. Miranda et. al is teaching kids how to use this resource in an appropriate manner. All resources have their weak points (including print encyclopedias and school textbooks) , in terms of quality of content, or political slant, or a lack of timeliness, or whatever. The key is to understand the weaknesses of your source(s) and use them accordingly.

On the budget cut impacts, note this little tidbit from the Portola e-tree: “Portola PE Teacher, Coach Jenkins, has asked for the help of parent volunteers in administering the CA Physical Education Test to her 250 7th graders.” The HOW MANY 7th graders? That’s obviously not all at once, but still. And the state still has the nerve to expect her to test them all.

Parents, Teachers,

You would not let masked and anonymous strangers with unchecked credentials come into your schools to teach your children on a daily basis. But that is precisely what you are doing when you encourage the use of Wikipedia. I hope you will think very seriously about that and exercise the full duty of care that you would exercise in a similar situation. Those of us who know the realities of Wikipedia know that you need to learn a lot more about it, more than is contained in the rehashed press release from the Wikimedia Foundation that is the uncredited source of the above article.

Sincerely yours,

Jon Awbrey

Students, Parents, Teachers, Administrators,

People who don't know Wikipedia very well tend to treat it as just another stream of content that passive readers are free to take or leave as they will. If it were really that simple then we might be justified in comparing Wikipedia with the general run of passive content on the Internet and evaluating it on that basis.

But Wikipedia is not like that. It is a Highly Interactive Virtual Environment (a “HIVE” indeed). It combines strong elements of active fantasy and make-believe, like those we find in other brands of interactive fantasy games, with strong elements of pseudo-peer pressure and pseudo-authority emulation, like those we find in ad hoc peer groups and even gangs.

From the very moment a reader first activates an edit button, he or she begins to interact with a population of unknown character and motivation. A minimal responsibility to oneself and one's charges demands that students, parents, teachers, and administrators get to know the character and motivation of that population.

Sincerely yours,

Jon Awbrey

.

Heh. Now I understand why you don't like Wikipedia. Wikipedia functions on trust and unless you can trust other people, you will a) have no reason to put your own knowledge in their power or b) accept other's knowledge.

I also understand why you don't like our schools.