Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-learn

Topic: [math-learn] Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia
is NOT a reliable source)

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Richard Hake

Posts: 1,205
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04
[math-learn] Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia
is NOT a reliable source)

Posted: Feb 18, 2012 1:25 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (13.4 K)

Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in a recent post
"Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia is
NOT a reliable source)" [Hake (2012)] at <http://bit.ly/zHmOEm>. The
abstract reads:

******************************************
ABSTRACT: Lloyd Carroll of the Chemed-L list, in a post "Useful for
students to read - Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source," wrote
(paraphrasing): "I plan to require that my students read
Messer-Kruse's (2012) 'The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia' at
<http://bit.ly/zUka0c>, wherein he shows that new discoveries may be
slow in coming to Wikipedia, especially if they are controversial."

But the same can be said of "Encyclopedia Britannica" and is not
necessarily a reason for non-citing of either encyclopedia. "In
Defense of Wikipedia" [Hake (2009)] I wrote

"Those who dismiss Wikipedia entries as a mere 'opinion pieces,' may
not be aware that a study by 'Nature' [Giles (2005)] at
<http://bit.ly/xERbDe> indicated that Wikipedia comes close to
Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries. . . . . .
Nature's claim of comparable accuracy of scientific entries in
Britannica and Wikipedia was disputed by Britannica (2006), but
Nature's initial formal response [Nature 2006a), an editorial Nature
(2006b), and point-by-point rebuttal [Nature (2006c] suggest that
Nature's claim was correct.
******************************************

To access the complete 7 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/zHmOEm>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to SDI Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
Academia: <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake>


REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 17 Feb 2012.]
Giles, J. 2005. "Special Report - Internet encyclopaedias go head to
head - Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy
of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. " Nature 438:
900-901, 15 December; online as a 508 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/xERbDe>.

Hake, R.R. 2012. "Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was
Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source)"; online on the OPEN! AERA-L
archives at <http://bit.ly/zHmOEm>. Post of 17 Feb 2012 17:07:41-0800
to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post
are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my
blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/xerAhy> with a provision for
comments.

Messer-Kruse, T. 2012. "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia"
Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 Feb, online at
<http://bit.ly/zUka0c>.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.