|
you have to treat wikipedia as you'd treat any information--critically.
the artificial rhetoric of authority in an encyclopedia in the old-school mode is if anything less reliable than is a source that requires you treat it with distance.
and no-one relies on an encyclopedia for actual research--not once you're past 8th grade anyway--they're a tool--a starting point. they can be fun to read, like long and strangely organized novels, too.
i've taught for a long time in university--i wouldn't fail a student for using a wikipedia source as PART of what they were doing--but i'd fail anyone for using any source without thinking about it. uncritical acceptance of information is laziness, nothing more nothing less.
conservapedia doesn't seem worth the trouble to engage with at all.
it is a joke.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|