|
Post by Radiation on Oct 5, 2011 18:16:48 GMT -5
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15097139Interesting article about young people, the Internet and the need for critical thinking skills when processing information from the Internet. There's a video embedded in the site. Conspiracy theorists are of course all up in arms about this, and of course are posting the video up on to, you guessed it: Youtube and claiming that the "elites" are trying to brainwash kids and to discredit "alternative media." ETA: Vid is here www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15122277
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Oct 5, 2011 18:43:29 GMT -5
Well duh. The government's never going to tell you about how Cylon forces assisted George Washington against Napoleon at the Battle of Tiananmen Square, which began as retaliation for Napoleon's conquest of Alexander the Great. Can you imagine what would happen if the truth got out?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 5, 2011 20:39:06 GMT -5
I like this quote:
"The reason logical fallacies are so widespread is because they are so persuasive."
Those documentaries just SOUND persuasive, to the unaware. Kind of like this, actually:
Did your high school ever actually present you with hard data about why you can't trust Wiki? Of course it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Oct 6, 2011 0:50:08 GMT -5
I like this quote: "The reason logical fallacies are so widespread is because they are so persuasive." Those documentaries just SOUND persuasive, to the unaware. Kind of like this, actually: Did your high school ever actually present you with hard data about why you can't trust Wiki? Of course it didn't. Mine did.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Oct 6, 2011 1:18:02 GMT -5
Reliability depends on the information you're looking for. If you're looking for, lets say, the number of people employed by the EPA, the government is a good place to look. Not so much for something like medicinal properties of cannabis.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 6, 2011 1:42:50 GMT -5
My general philosophy is that is something sounds too good or too bad, it generally is and needs much more digging. Articles that are neutral (generally the ones full of facts) I find less likely to question. It does not mean those facts are right, but I would be more inclined to accept them.
This is my personal view on information gathering. it is not perfect, but in general it does alright.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Fishcake on Oct 6, 2011 2:12:22 GMT -5
You only have to look at the reach and impact of the Internet Church of Human Environmental Impact Denial to see scope of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 6, 2011 5:54:29 GMT -5
Did your high school ever actually present you with hard data about why you can't trust Wiki? Of course it didn't. The fact that anyone can edit it and the task of maintaining accuracy falls to people who aren't necessarily qualified historians, maybe? That's not to say it can't be useful, it's just highly advisable to check the sources used before trusting the content of an article.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 6, 2011 7:00:12 GMT -5
I like this quote: "The reason logical fallacies are so widespread is because they are so persuasive." Those documentaries just SOUND persuasive, to the unaware. Kind of like this, actually: Did your high school ever actually present you with hard data about why you can't trust Wiki? Of course it didn't. We didn't have Wikipedia when I left school in 1989. However, a friend who is a teacher does teach not to use the web as a definitive answer to questions: Using books is still the best way and the only way accepted by examiners.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 6, 2011 12:12:14 GMT -5
And yet your average high school teacher has absolutely NO PROBLEM with you using a random web document, just so long as it's not Wikipedia. Never mind that with Wiki, you at least have quality control. In the case of a source maintained by one person, the person has a monopoly on that information. And the guideline "go for .edu & .org" isn't reliable--Wikipedia IS a .org website!
Now, does that mean that the individual person's source WILL be bad because it COULD be? No, of course not. Remember what I said about logical fallacies making sense on a SUPERFICIAL level?
Also, I don't know how the typical encyclopedia's editorial process works, but I'm willing to bet the editors aren't historians/scientists/what have you there, either.
Again, your average high school teacher won't let you use it at all, even if it's an assignment that requires 5+ sources ANYWAY.
Basically, what I am against is this baseline irrational Wikipedia is Bad knee jerk reaction. I don't advocate using it for scientific research or only using it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Oct 6, 2011 15:25:44 GMT -5
Promulgating the belief that conspiracy theories could be wrong is a conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Oct 6, 2011 17:10:16 GMT -5
To be honest, this kind of looks like one of those panicky statements that the internet is ruining society/corrupting our youth/is of the devil/etc. Smart people use the internet. Dumb people use the internet. There is no more dumb stuff on the internet than there is in real life, it's just that it's easier to find. If you're a smart person, then you'll be able to discern smart from dumb. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 6, 2011 18:53:24 GMT -5
Again, your average high school teacher won't let you use it at all, even if it's an assignment that requires 5+ sources ANYWAY. Basically, what I am against is this baseline irrational Wikipedia is Bad knee jerk reaction. I don't advocate using it for scientific research or only using it. Luckily, there's a way around it. Go to Wikipedia and then go directly to the sources and cite those without ever mentioning Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Oct 7, 2011 0:05:34 GMT -5
Again, your average high school teacher won't let you use it at all, even if it's an assignment that requires 5+ sources ANYWAY. Basically, what I am against is this baseline irrational Wikipedia is Bad knee jerk reaction. I don't advocate using it for scientific research or only using it. Luckily, there's a way around it. Go to Wikipedia and then go directly to the sources and cite those without ever mentioning Wikipedia. That's exactly what my teacher tells us to do. She doesn't mind if we go to Wikipedia to get a brief "overview" of a topic and she also lets us use it to find sources. In fact, she insists that we check Wikipedia first before checking any other database or search engine.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 7, 2011 6:37:32 GMT -5
Luckily, there's a way around it. Go to Wikipedia and then go directly to the sources and cite those without ever mentioning Wikipedia. That's exactly what my teacher tells us to do. She doesn't mind if we go to Wikipedia to get a brief "overview" of a topic and she also lets us use it to find sources. In fact, she insists that we check Wikipedia first before checking any other database or search engine. But have you actually read the original source material?
|
|