Falling Exam Passes Blamed on Wikipedia ‘Littered With Inaccuracies’
Martyn McLaughlin, Scotsman (Edinburgh), June 21, 2008
| More news stories on Censorship |
|---|
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.
“Internet plagiarism is a problem. Pupils think ‘I’ll nick that and nobody will notice’, but the Scottish Qualifications Authority has robust ways of checking for plagiarism and parents are worried their children will fail their exams.”
Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said there was a higher risk of inaccurate information on the internet than in books. He added: “We need to make sure youngsters don’t take what they read online as fact.”
Several further education institutions have already banned students from using the interactive encyclopaedia. At one college in Vermont in the US, a history professor found several students repeated the same error in exam papers. On discovering the information came from Wikipedia, the college outlawed its future use.
Ms Coner said overuse of the internet also meant students did not develop interpretative skills.
She said: “Pupils are in danger of believing what they read. It’s part of our short-cut culture, where we will do anything to pass a test, without properly engaging with the information or questions that are being asked.
“It’s all very well to glance at a website for research, but you have to check what you are reading is correct. Anything can be untrue. I can claim to be a world expert on anything if I set up a website on the internet.”
Alan Johnson, the UK Education Secretary, was lambasted earlier this year for suggesting the website could be a positive educational tool for children.
He described the internet as “an incredible force for good in education”, singling out Wikipedia for praise.
A disclaimer on Wikipedia states “it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information”.
Boasting over two million articles, Wikipedia is used by about 6 per cent of internet users, significantly more than the traffic to more authorised sites, such as those of newspapers. Its articles are mainly edited by a team of volunteers.
‘There is a great deal of misinformation on the net’
LAST week I heard the writer Colin Bateman describe how, on looking himself up on Wikipedia, he was dismayed to discover that his young son had gone online and added the sentence: “Mr Bateman is currently suffering from penile dysfunction.” Fortunately his dad saw the funny side—and was proud his child could spell “dysfunction” correctly.
In common with students everywhere, I use Wikipedia as a research tool, and so does my son. Occasionally, I come across areas where there is academic dissent—for example on whether Homer was an individual poet, and this is usually clearly indicated.
There are subjects on which I wouldn’t trust any open-edit web resource, because I’ve come across too many conspiracy theorists in my time. But generally I think the biggest risk of using any internet source is that it leads to plagiarism, intended or unintended.
It is so easy to cut and paste, meaning only to put together some useful notes, and then to draw on them too heavily without acknowledging the source. At the extreme it is all too easy to buy “off the peg” essays on any subject.
When I was studying public health, we were trained to test the reliability of health-related websites, because there is a great deal of subjective misinformation on the net which may appear reliable.
The great strength of the internet is that it means we can amass information very readily, but it is hard to distinguish between authoritative, scientifically tested information, and something more akin to rumour.
One topic in my son’s Higher History course is the civil rights movement in the US. Starting from the simplest of internet queries, it wasn’t long before he got into quite contentious issues, which were presented in very partial terms by organisations with vested interests.
It was hugely useful to him to develop the skill of challenging what was presented as “fact”, but it is a skill that has to be learnt, and which many internet users won’t have. Of course, that skill isn’t just useful for assessing the reliability of the internet. Mr Bateman, for example, earns his living by making up stories.
o Miranda Harvey is a parent of a pupil at Boroughmuir High School, Edinburgh.
Politics
POLITICIANS and their parties are among those Wikipedia entries most vulnerable to deliberate misinformation.
During his time in Downing Street, Tony Blair may have been alarmed to find himself slurred as “George Bush’s bitch-boy”.
The SNP’s entry has previously seen the party described as one “influenced by childish Jacobitism”, while Scottish Labour has been dubbed a “fascist organisation”.
Celebrity
AS WELL as political heavy-hitters, the realm of celebrity is a favourite for Wikipedia’s mischief-makers.
At different times, Kylie Minogue has had her genealogical history thrown into doubt after her entry claimed that she was “the more beautiful and talented older sister” of Michael Jackson.
Robbie Williams suffered an even crueller entry—it was at one point alleged on Wikipedia that he made a living from eating hamsters in pubs in and around Stoke.
Fantasists
WIKIPEDIA is seen by some as a blank canvas where self-publicists can promote themselves. In 2006, a call centre worker from Glasgow was exposed after concocting an elaborate alter ego through his Wikipedia page, which gave the impression he was a highly decorated war hero.
Alan Mcilwraith, renaming himself Captain Sir Alan, claimed to have been an officer in the Parachute Regiment, who finished top of his class at Sandhurst before going on to become a terrorism expert.
After two years of conducting this charade, someone who knew Mcilwraith revealed the sham.
[Editor’s Note: American Renaissance’s August 2008 cover article on Wikipedia can be read here.]
(Posted on June 25, 2008)
Comments
“susceptible to vandalism and the insertion of false imformation”
I`ve been reading lately about the polar opposite of shop lifting, something called shop dropping. An example would be an unknown band sneaking its CD INTO a major record store hoping for exposure and publicity. The article didn`t make it clear if these items were ever “sold” or how. Anyway it struck me as something that might come in handy in the future.
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 6:59 PM on June 25
One topic in my son’s Higher History course is the civil rights movement in the US. Starting from the simplest of internet queries, it wasn’t long before he got into quite contentious issues, which were presented in very partial terms by organisations with vested interests.
That’s not just Wikipedia that does this, it’s virtually all of Official American (and Western) politically correct society that discusses civil rights for minorities using one-sided propaganda
Posted by Question Diversity at 8:37 PM on June 25
If this lady is using Wikipedia for a source, then she needs to take another research writing class. What kind of “professional” doesn’t understand that Wikipedia is written by users, be it a 4-year old or an actual expert?
What an idiot.
Posted by Jeremy Douglas at 8:59 PM on June 25
Haha.. the modern liberals are providing false information used by modern liberal students to pass state tests controlled by modern liberals. It’s a circle of stupidity.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 10:02 PM on June 25
If you compare the Encyclopedia Britannica published today with one before 1914, you will find big differences regarding the history of Reconstruction period after the U.S. Civil War. Even print encyclopedias are biased. There is no getting away from it. I do not doubt that Wikipedia is completely unobjective politically - and historically if there is any PC issue involved. But it is useful for other information.
Posted by Whiteplight at 10:09 PM on June 25
Teachers are socialists. I wouldn’t trust them to restrict my information. Wikipedia is pretty accurate in my experience. It has flaws, but so do many books for that matter. Wikipedia is huge and is bound to have axes to grind(read Mr. Stix’s good article), but so does the mainstream book publishers, authors, etc. There are plenty of terrible editors as well. Read the article from the link below
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Posted by Gaurav Ahuja at 10:44 PM on June 25
Teachers are socialists. I wouldn’t trust them to restrict my information. Wikipedia is pretty accurate in my experience. It has flaws, but so do many books for that matter. Wikipedia is huge and is bound to have axes to grind(read Mr. Stix’s good article), but so does the mainstream book publishers, authors, etc. There are plenty of terrible editors as well. Read the article from the link below
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Posted by Gaurav Ahuja at 10:44 PM on June 25
Sorry!!! I don’t have any compassion or sympathy for failing students who are to lazy to cross check information they intend to use for passing marks in class. The old fashioned method of copying but changing a word here or there never worked in the past and doesn’t work now, especially if the sole source is incorrect.
Posted by Skip at 1:19 AM on June 26
Wikipedia is littered with afrocentric mumbo jumbo. The type of false information found there is astounding, for example, the laughable claim that Beethoven was part black. Anyone interested in facts would not turn to it, when any clown can go on there and edit in anything they wish.
Posted by at 7:15 AM on June 26
I had wondered about this issue myself. Between this article and Nicholas Stix’s excellent Wiki examination from yesterday, I now understand better. Posters here sometimes refer to Leftists’ “long march thru the institutions” of academe, media, govt, etc. Wikipedia is, for them, just another institution to infiltrate, control, and pervert. This explains why Wiki’s entries on Jared Taylor and AmRen aren’t longer or more flattering than they are: it’s not that nobody from our side has TRIED to make them so; it’s that Wiki’s left-leaning editors will change them back to fit their liberal agenda.
For superficial research on noncontroversial subjects like bio’s of actors, musicians, etc, Wikipedia can be a wonderful, one-stop info source. Or as a STARTING point for one’s research. It’s only when the research needs to be deeper; or subject is divisive, such as politics — esp. RACIAL politics — that the trouble starts.
Posted by at 9:18 AM on June 26
The encyclopedia is totally worthless, not because it is ALL inaccurate, but because some of it is, and since that’s the case, a person searching for answers will never know if the information he’s provided with is the truth or some kind of useless propaganda forced into it by a good number of leftist radicals who have distorted the truth to fit their perverted belief system and forced its acceptance within the publication.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 11:54 AM on June 26
To hear Blacks and liberals tell it… the Civil War was fought solely to preserve/end slavery… depending on whether you were a [cowardly] Southerner or a [Valiant] Northerner. Nor would Blacks or liberals admit Lincoln NEVER really intended to abolish slavery at the onset of the Civil War. Or that Lincoln’s plan was to pack all Blacks back to Africa AFTER war’s end.
Don’t expect Wikipedia to concede General Robert E. Lee was undoubtedly the most brilliant military strategist fighting the War. Or that Lincoln was chagrinned when Robert E. Lee rebuffed his offer to lead the Northern Army; Lee chosing instead to offer his services to his beloved State of Virginia, to end up commanding the Army of Northern Virginia — some of the bravest, most valient men fighting in that war.
The damned liberals and Blacks are doing their utmost trying to force the rewriting of history. To deny that in 50,000 years of evolution, Blacks on their own never amounted to anything worth noting. Or that today’s Blacks… in Africa, those in European White nations, or our own dysfunctional Blacks represent the peak of Black evolution. Like the man says, “Go figure!”
Posted by Fed Up at 2:30 PM on June 26
There is a delicious irony in that the liberals undoubtedly have come to HATE the Internet. Since it allow free exchange of ideas and opinions… many of which fly in the face of liberal Mantra. (Blacks emphatically not the fine, noble human beings liberals try to paint them as — for just ONE example.)
The Internet probably went a long way to derailing Shrillary Clinton’s political dream — that of becoming Mme. President. With any luck, the Internet will also go a long way to squelch the dream of Barak Hussein Obama becoming president. By pointing out the ugly truths about him, his wife. His lies, posturing and pandering to solicit votes.
Posted by Fed Up at 2:51 PM on June 26
Wikipedia is pretty good for scientific topics (except IQ or anthropological articles). What is rather funny is watching these Trotskyites trying to turn history on its head while there are still plenty of printed sources to contradict them. At some point these nutjobs are going to have to start burning books to stay ahead of the curve. At that point you will know that the blood letting is nigh.
Posted by Xenophon at 4:24 PM on June 26
I do not doubt that Wikipedia is completely unobjective politically - and historically if there is any PC issue involved. But it is useful for other information.
Especially valuable are the pictures of has-been rockers and other celebrities. Instead of presenting a picture of them in their representative prime, Wikipedia always shows a painfully current one. I can imagine that in ten years the entry on Alice Cooper will show him sitting in a wheelchair in an old folk’s home.
Posted by HideouslyWhite at 7:52 PM on June 26
“The encyclopedia is totally worthless, not because it is ALL inaccurate, but because some of it is”
Perhaps. But please tell us then, what source is guaranteed to be TOTALLY accurate … and WHO certifies that it is so?
Posted by at 8:24 PM on June 26