Today's post is going to be fairly short.... and if you haven't read the title....... it's about Wikipedia.... and contrary to what teachers call "unreliable" or "not substantial", Wikipedia is definitely reliable and substantial. To test this, I wikipedia-d "World War II"... and changed every date from 1942 into 2015..... Merely 3 MINUTES LATERZZZZZ........ it was changed back......... Which led into my conclusion that there are sad scholars out there that monitor this stuff..... preventing the information provided to be flawed. So why do teachers think Wikipedia is unreliable?
1. They're jealous that when they were our age.... they still had to use textbooks
2. Textbooks..... they want us to suffer and get paper cuts
3. Some don't acknowledge that internet exists
4, "Internet is the devil"
5. "What is Wikipedia?"
6. They're afraid we might learn something more than them
7. Having a book as a source just seems more legitimate
8. 15 years ago, Wikipedia was not reliable... therefore/ergo/visa vie.... it is not now...... (logic FAILURE anyone??)
9. They're socialist communists that plan to take over the world via flawed teaching
10. .......... secretly............. they ARE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMFG!!! AGHY!HDRT!!!
But most important reason why?
They don't want us to copy and paste our homework/projects/tests
....... but then again......... if you're giving us stuff "copy and paste" worthy..... ur teaching style is obviously ..... WRONGGGGGGG
Thanks for reading!
1 Post a Comment!!:
I won't say Wikipedia is unreliable, but it's definitely not a foolproof resource. Many students think that they can get by with information from Wikipedia alone, but it's not always the case that the information from Wikipedia is comprehensive enough for academic study. I often use Wikipedia, and my impression is that it's good for getting a rough idea of something, but if you want a more serious study, Wikipedia alone certainly will not do ...
Post a Comment