VisualWikipedia is a visual, intuitive, and interactive web interface to encyclopedic knowledge/information. It is designed to provide a fun place to learn stuff in an efficient manner. Please watch the following video to get a good sense of how to use it.
A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.
Wikipedia's parent foundation is putting major money in an effort to turn "lurkers" into participants by removing tech barriers to making wiki contributions.
Simson Garfinkel takes a look at authority and sourcing in Wikipedia world with an article in the latest edition of Technology Review. He focuses on Wikipedia’s requirement to cite published sources in adding information to Wikipedia articles. Yes, with a mob-written encyclopedia, a requirement for citing published, vetted sources makes sense, he writes.
Wikipedia's standard for inclusion has become its de facto standard for truth, and since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it's the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.
This is a free 20 volume encyclopedia that can be downloaded and used on classroom computers without internet access. The website says: "Topics were chosen for interest to children, by relevance to the [U.K.] National Curriculum and including much of the very best of Wikipedia." The topics have been chosen, edited, and checked for inappropriate material by volunteers from SOS children.
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.
RSS for Tags: wikipedia
VisualWikipedia is a visual, intuitive, and interactive web interface to encyclopedic knowledge/information. It is designed to provide a fun place to learn stuff in an efficient manner. Please watch the following video to get a good sense of how to use it.
A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.
Wikipedia's parent foundation is putting major money in an effort to turn "lurkers" into participants by removing tech barriers to making wiki contributions.
Simson Garfinkel takes a look at authority and sourcing in Wikipedia world with an article in the latest edition of Technology Review. He focuses on Wikipedia’s requirement to cite published sources in adding information to Wikipedia articles. Yes, with a mob-written encyclopedia, a requirement for citing published, vetted sources makes sense, he writes.
Wikipedia's standard for inclusion has become its de facto standard for truth, and since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it's the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.
This is a free 20 volume encyclopedia that can be downloaded and used on classroom computers without internet access. The website says: "Topics were chosen for interest to children, by relevance to the [U.K.] National Curriculum and including much of the very best of Wikipedia." The topics have been chosen, edited, and checked for inappropriate material by volunteers from SOS children.
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.
discuss this
email this
