petrichor
/
erambler
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix ellipsis in square brackets

This commit is contained in:
Jez Cope 2015-05-14 21:41:19 +01:00
parent aa1cc27e93
commit b52842504a
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
content/articles/2009/04/does-wikipedia-have-a-place-in-education.md
View File

@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Like it or loath it, people use <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a
As a publicly-editable wiki, Wikipedia works by and large as a repository for human knowledge, which is great. The problem is that some of the people who edit it choose to wilfully present incorrect information. For example, the birthday of the artist Titian was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm">recently falsified</a> in Wikipedia following an exchange in the British House of Commons; the edit was quickly traced back to the headquarters of the Conservative Party. Other users vandalise the site, while others still are simply wrong.
What about the case in Wikipedia's favour? Four years ago, an <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html">article</a> (subscription required, <a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844">report in Wired here</a>) published in Nature compared 42 articles between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. The authors reported "eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, [...] four from each encyclopaedia." In minor errors, Britannica still had the edge, but not by much.
What about the case in Wikipedia's favour? Four years ago, an <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html">article</a> (subscription required, <a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844">report in Wired here</a>) published in Nature compared 42 articles between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. The authors reported "eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, \[...\] four from each encyclopaedia." In minor errors, Britannica still had the edge, but not by much.
Whichever way you fall on the issue, an understanding of Wikipedia is an important element of information literacy which cannot be ignored. As such, it needs to be considered by educators. So what are people doing already?