Although Wikipedia is a great place to find information, it's subject to incomplete citations, biased views, and inaccuracies. And when you absolutely have to have indisputable facts, that's just not good enough. Fortunately, there are plenty of alternatives out there that can deliver with high quality accuracy, and we?ve listed 25 of the best here.
Google is taking on Wikipedia. I wonder who will win...
Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt.
If the district is going to take a principled stand against Wikipedia because some information is biased or incorrect, is it also taking out all of the encyclopedias (which research has shown, on average, to be as inaccurate as Wikipedia)? Is it removing all of the news magazines and newspapers? The article makes a big deal about how school librarians preview materials before they’re placed on the shelves, but I can guarantee you that librarians and media specialists do not have time to screen every word of every incoming publication.
A French court has ruled that Wikipedia could not be held responsible for content posted by its users in a landmark ruling for the Internet giant, officials said Friday.
Watch Wikipedia edits in real time on a Google Map. See what page is edited, how, and where in the world the edit is coming from. Better than TV!
Anyone can add to Wikipedia, the popular online encylopedia, but whether a submission survives is determined entirely by its global community of users — and apparently those users are tougher graders than college professors.
After poring over the Dutch and French versions of Wikipedia, the Dartmouth team concluded that anonymous “good Samaritans†are actually among the site’s most valuable editors.
Articles describes potential benefits and pitfalls of wikis in the classroom.
According to K.G. Schneider, a librarian, in CIO, Wikipedia’s “inclusionists†(who argue that the site should continue to encourage new entries) and its “deletionists†(who advocate cutting articles deemed fatuous or picayune) are now engaged in a pitched battle.
RSS for Tags: wikipedia
Although Wikipedia is a great place to find information, it's subject to incomplete citations, biased views, and inaccuracies. And when you absolutely have to have indisputable facts, that's just not good enough. Fortunately, there are plenty of alternatives out there that can deliver with high quality accuracy, and we?ve listed 25 of the best here.
Google is taking on Wikipedia. I wonder who will win...
Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt.
If the district is going to take a principled stand against Wikipedia because some information is biased or incorrect, is it also taking out all of the encyclopedias (which research has shown, on average, to be as inaccurate as Wikipedia)? Is it removing all of the news magazines and newspapers? The article makes a big deal about how school librarians preview materials before they’re placed on the shelves, but I can guarantee you that librarians and media specialists do not have time to screen every word of every incoming publication.
Watch Wikipedia edits in real time on a Google Map. See what page is edited, how, and where in the world the edit is coming from. Better than TV!
Anyone can add to Wikipedia, the popular online encylopedia, but whether a submission survives is determined entirely by its global community of users — and apparently those users are tougher graders than college professors.
Articles describes potential benefits and pitfalls of wikis in the classroom.
discuss this
email this
