Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies'

[dkf]

WIKIPEDIA and other online research sources were yesterday blamed for Scotland's falling exam pass rates.

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.

The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information.

Standard Grade pass rates were down for the first time in four years last year and the SPTC is now calling for pupils to be given lessons on using the internet appropriately for additional research purposes "before the problem gets out of hand".

Eleanor Coner, the SPTC's information officer, said: "Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching. The sad fact is most children these days use libraries for computers, not the books. We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.

"It's dangerous when the internet is littered with opinion and inaccurate information which could be taken as fact.
http://news.scotsman.com/education/Falling-exam--passes-blamed.4209408.jp

[agentS]

1. Now that's strange

I've found Wikipedia to be very accurate, except of course when the spammers get to it.

What websites are these kids looking at, FOX Noise? Little Green Footballs? Taylor Marsh?

[dkf]

2. I wondered that myself.

But then, I generally look up stuff I don't know very well anyway.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Jazzgirl]

6. I went back to school late in life.

We were told pretty early on not to use or source Wiki because their information was often inaccurate and anybody could change it.

[Posteritatis]

13. It gets pretty flaky when you venture off the more beaten paths sometimes

The ancient history sections occasionally have some spectacular ones, between vandals, people who think 300 was a documentary, and nationalists. Someone's not likely to mess up, say, the article on Alexander the Great (although there was a spirited attempt by some Iranians awhile back to claim that calling him "the Great" was NPOV - someone responded by suggesting we call Charlemagne Charle from now on), but once you venture away from the more obvious names and places quite a bit can slip through and get uncritically accepted.

At least that was my experience grading papers the past couple years. Ow.

[Donnachaidh]

3. now if the children were TAUGHT the proper way of researching

Dunno how it is in Scotland, but the kids in my son's school know diddley-shit about researching. And even if they WERE taught the old school ways of researching, they would NOT be able to do it because the libraries are miserably small - probably due to some ruling on the school board about books needing to be evaluated as *appropriate* before they are bought. And of course, the schools would much rather buy shiny new computers for the library (and libraries are no longer called libraries - they are called Media Centers) than purchase books.

It's far easier to blame the net than admit that the schools may not have the texts handy - or perhaps the kids weren't taught the skills they need. :shrug:

[ColbertWatcher]

14. Well said. n/t

[fujiyama]

5. Wikipedia is great as a starting point for information

but any good Wiki entry has disclaimers regarding the bias, inaccuracy, or poor citation of an article.

A good Wiki article will have other sources, like any other encyclopedia. Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source, but often times can lead to other sources. In the Sciences, I've been fairly impressed with Wikis. Sometimes, I've noticed bias creep in on topics related to history and politics...But hey, that's how it works. I find it to be one of the most fascinating and informative sites on the internet, but if seriously researching something, I'll look at the credibility of the sources used.

Rather than just dismissing it outright like some technophobic teachers, or using it as the one and only source for a research paper, like many students are using it, both should understand it's use, functionality, advantages and pitfalls.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Academic material costs a lot of money

Nearly all journal articles are embargoed behind a "profitwall". You have to pay between $20-$50 to download articles that are often tax-subsidized to begin with. So if you find information in a Wiki, you try to verify it, and come to a dead end.

Online encyclopedias also charge. The only way to get access is to enroll in a university. Some of them have "Friends of the Library" programs you join that will get you library privileges, but I have yet to find one that will grant online journal reading without the massive fee. There are free-access journals and textbooks, but they are fairly rare, and the more commonly used texts are seldom part of the free holdings.

It has become more difficult in the past few years to be an independent scholar. That just ain't right. If we can't open up academic access to the public, we have no right in whining about how the public is "dumbed down".

Most curiously -- a great many academics strongly support this practice. I suppose they think they'll be getting fat residuals on their work. But it's a false economy. The Internet has revved up the intellectual interests of millions of people. By adopting an "information wants to be free" approach, royalties are deflated, but the value of scholarship, as a whole, is greatly increased. The time is coming when we may see scholastic superstars being paid millions of dollars to give lectures and classes to thousands of participants.

But not today.

--p!

[Sanity Claws]

8. You can access many of these materials when using

computers or the wireless signal at the university.
As a graduate of a certain major university, I can go on campus, use their WIFI signal and access these scholarly publications for free.

[liberal N proud]

9. My daughter did poorly on a quiz at school, blamed the news

My 15 year old did poorly on a quiz at school on current events. When the teacher asked her why she did poorly she responded with "I have been watching the news and have not been able to watch the Cobert Report lately"

The teacher gave her two points for originality.

[jody]

10. As others have noted, IMO wikipedia is perfect as a starting point with links too many credible,

authoritative sources.

IMO it's a very useful overview for anyone needing a general outline to help them pose intelligent questions or to understand answers in a new area.

[ellisonz]

11. I think this is just scapegoating bullshit.

They never explain how exactly wikipedia is causing exam scores to go down. If students are not writing essays and are instead plagiarizing wikipedia then the fault lies with educators for not spotting the obvious cheats and correcting the behavior. At the same time, and especially with the humanities and social sciences, it should be plain that much writing is no more objective or less factually deprived than much of the writing. Somehow I doubt high school students are doing college level research and writing. Maybe Scotland's education system is crumbling just like that in the US, not that standardized testing tells you the entirety of the social story in any case.

P.S. your avatar is awesome.

[skooooo]

16. huh?

What do you mean by: "At the same time, and especially with the humanities and social sciences, it should be plain that much writing is no more objective or less factually deprived than much of the writing."

[ellisonz]

17. Not all books in the library are any less flawed than a wikipedia article.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

12. Well, that's what happens when you use a site whose prime reason for existance....

......is to let a bunch of arrogant nerds act like they are the hand of God when it comes to what is "notable" and what isn't.

It's a good starting point that should lead students to look at other sites, books and materials that specifically focus on the subjects they are looking for.

[skooooo]

15. The Wikipedia article on Britney Spears..

...is more researched and footnoted than many science articles in Wikipedia. That should tell you something.

[NeedleCast]

18. Parents Claim "It's Not Our Fault our Kids are Dumb!"

[Malikshah]

19. Inaccuracies, yes. But what I find more insidious is that students

believe that the coverage as found on wikipedia is all there is to know.

I can always tell an wikipedia'd answer in that it will give irrelevant minutiae and descriptive information but not address key issues as found in our readings and discussions.

The Parrot generation, alas.