Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous What My Local News Station Reports | Probability of being filmed Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous What My Local News Station Reports | Probability of being filmed Next »
omg sooo true -.-
i duno y i didnt make this graph lol
actually, all my teachers use wikipedia in class and encourage me to research with it…
I never tried in school. Wikipedia didn’t come around until after I graduated, but I do love wikipedia. Teachers can sit on it.
Wikipedia = The Devil
No it isn’t!
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil
got em
No it isn’t!
According to *english* teachers…the science ones think it’s great! XD
Uhhh… no. The science ones don’t think it’s “great.” They hate it too. Reason being, the information can be written by anyone, and therefore is not necessarily factual. Use it for the resources on the bottom of the pages.
^^^ this.
Very few teachers or institutions will allow you to cite Wikipedia as a source due to its ‘anyone can edit’ nature.
However, there’s never anything wrong with using the sources that the author of that wikipedia article compiled.
Exactly!
Agreed, or as a lighter overview of something before getting your teeth into a more weighty version.
THANK YOU! That sums it all up folks.
Speaking as a science teacher… no we don’t
I teach HS science and from the beginning of Wikipedia’s existence I have had to correct students because someone posted either a very poor explanation or totally inaccurate information on wiki.
I don’t deny that it *could* be a good thing but people who think they are experts on a topic put out some seriously bad information.
I have used Wikipedia myself in researching material for a lesson but never use information found on it unless I can verify from other sources the accuracy of the information.
Personally, I believe that as a starting point for information on science topics it is useful but only if you are willing to put the time in verifying the sources. Not many HS students are that interested in putting in the extra work of double and triple checking sources (no offense to the HS types out there.)
speaking as a college student who recently graduated high school…
Do you know how much homework teachers give out. seriously i have less work in college than i did in high school, and I’m in paramedic school and doing prerequisites for nursing.
Every high school teacher thinks that their subject is god when in reality it is one seventh of the crap i won’t be caring about in any given school day.
Uh, considering that 9/10 of what I’m learning in Biology has nothing to do with what I want to do (Computer Programing) with my life. I use Wikipedia because most of it, believe it or not, is true. Most people know the analogy, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” So they don’t bother to change it.
no, science ones are the ones who hates it cos they think it’s not up to date enough, history teachers are usually alright
My students certainly aren’t allowed to cite Wikipedia in their history papers. I let my juniors start there when they’re writing their big research papers, but they’re only allowed to use it to get some initial direction, find more detailed search terms and topics and find some other book or website references.
Wikipedia is a good resource for informal information, but it’s a good lesson in the importance of evaluating the credibility of your sources and thinking about bias – which should be part of every history class.
Don’t forget “plagiarism”
and gum
I’m an English teacher and I teach my kids how to use Wikipedia…
But plagiarism, yeah, that’s bad. If you make it through college without expulsion, heavy fines, and a prison term, make sure to thank an English teacher.
You say you teach your kids to use wikipedia. Do you also teach your students to use wikipedia?
See below poster (“kids” = “students”). Yes, I teach them to use wikipedia as a framework to generate ideas. Something of a spine. They are expected to find outside information to elaborate on anything they find on wikipedia, but I find that allowing students to use it (and teaching them how to use it properly) gives them a strong foundation to begin generating thoughts. Besides, wikipedia gives them better information than Hollywood does. They’re going to use the shortcuts; teach them how.
“Kids”
Spoken like a true teacher. We do tend to adopt our students and think of them as our own. I call them ‘my kids’ all the time.
Hah. I didn’t even realize I had until I came back.
The English teacher needs to learn how to use commas.
Where have I erred, sir? If anything, I have misused the ellipsis.
Here’s a little bit of information to help you out:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
Because I know what you thought you were so intelligently pointing out, I’ll let you know now that you’ll only need to read the first in the list to realize why you need to go back to English class. I’ll let you know if one of my kids drops.
As you said, you can learn from the website you linked:
“Use a comma + a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so) to connect two independent clauses, as in ‘He hit the ball well, but he ran toward third base.’”
You are missing a comma in your first sentence:
“I’m an English teacher and I teach my kids how to use Wikipedia…”
Have fun going back to English class!
Oh, and you may want to look up my name. It happens to be a female name.
I have no desire to look up your name, and I couldn’t care less whether it’s a female or male name. No one would have looked twice at it if you hadn’t brought it up.
Viscount called me “sir.” I was only pointing out that my name is female. It even sounds female; how does one get a male sense from “Caoilinn”?
Have to defend the English teacher on this one. Just like the majority of languages in English the default gender is male if the speaker is unsure of the gender of the individual being spoke of.
All the he/she and his/her crap came out with women rights.
The site also says:
“Contending that the coordinating conjunction is adequate separation, some writers will leave out the comma in a sentence with short, balanced independent clauses”
The comma there is optional.
I was brought up with the comma always present when combining two sentences with a conjunction. Grammar school, high school, undergraduate, and professional studies have all told me that one uses a comma in this situation.
While the comma is theoretically expected, it is not so much a case of “should or should not” so much as it is a case of “not necessarily required.” For example, it is not absolutely required to put a comma between the last and second to last items in a list of things, but it is generally advised to avoid confusion. However, we are also taught to attempt to use commas as infrequently as possible, so I tend to razor out the commas I feel to be unnecessary.
This is so stupid. Although I back the english teacher. NO ONE CARES.
You cared enough to comment.
Read on, young padawan:
Contending that the coordinating conjunction is adequate separation, some writers will leave out the comma in a sentence with short, balanced independent clauses (such as we see in the example just given). If there is ever any doubt, however, use the comma, as it is always correct in this situation.
While I do apologize if my unfamiliarity with your name offended you, I do not understand why it matters. My use of “sir” was not intended to be anything more than a modern colloquial use similar to “dude,” but frequently attributed to a note of sarcasm or condescension.
You’re a hypocrite. Since when, in academic writing, since apparently that’s what you’re judging this *Internet comment* on, do you start a sentence with “because” or use contractions?
My bad, Viscount. I thought it was someone else complaining about your apparent lack of commas.
Since you teach English, you might want to provide your students this link on the proper use of an ellipsis (those three periods you used incorrectly to end a sentence):
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm
Additionally, since when it is proper to start a sentence with a conjunction (“but”)?
I feel for your students (which I believe is what you mean, since I doubt you meant your own children).
you do realize that just because someone is a teacher, that doesnt mean they are going to be constantly anal about grammer.
im studying to be a teacher and i honestly dont see a problem with simple grammer mistakes on an informal website or journal, or anything completely informal (obvious, as seen by the nature of my grammer here) and i wont be anal about it unless its something completely formal.
Shift key! Shift key!
You; doesn’t; “be constantly anal” (should be “constantly be anal”); grammar; I’m (two errors); I (capital); don’t; grammar; obviously (it refers to seeing); grammar; I; won’t.
You should improve your use of capitalization, apostrophes, and your spelling of the word “grammar”.
Work isn’t formal, but I damn well hope you’re anal about spelling in English class.
I’m so glad I teach science. I am just happy if they can get the concept down. Commas matter little in my world…
Your kids get the concepts sometimes? Man, I’m in the wrong content.
But, but, but…you’re splitting the infinitive!
I do realize all of my errors, and to be fair, I’m going to be teaching Elementary School rather than High School English.
I tend to be lazy over the internet, however, although I do understand the concepts of English. It was my strongest subject in school.
Although I do admit that I have a tendency to misspell the word “grammar”.
Gramm*a*r. Gramm*a*r!
Exactly! The misuse of grammar/spelling on the Internet does NOT equate to not knowing grammar rules and spelling. I often misuse punctuation/grammar as a way to express emotion AND to be informal… I type how I would talk to people. That means I’ll spell “want to” like “wanna”, I’ll start a sentence with a conjuction, and I’ll put commas or ellipses where I would naturally pause while talking…
In fact, I find it sketchy when people post things with proper spelling and grammar. It makes me think they have a stick up their *** and are trying too hard to be viewed as “right.”
Oh, get over your silly pedantic self.
You’re lecturing me on the use of prescriptive grammar on a social website. Now, simply by use of the word “social,” the atmosphere of the language used denies the necessity of prescriptive rule and instead beckons forth a descriptive nature, which allows one to type and speak in any way that is colloquially common in one’s dialect.
Now that we have that out of the way, yes, I am an English teacher, and yes, I am fairly anal when it comes to grammar. If you look above, I knew of my misuse of the ellipsis. However, this being a descriptive setting, I decided to use the accepted “colloquial” use of the ellipsis that is entertained on the internet, thus allowing me (a lowly English teacher) to use an ellipsis (formally used to indicate omitted content) in such a way as to imply that I was “trailing off” in my statement. Make sense? Excellent!
I won’t even touch on the fallacies inherent in the very use of prescriptive grammar. I mean, honestly, attempting to assign Latin-based rules to a Germanic language? Downright silly if you ask me.
Kindly remove the stick from your ass. Language is for communication, not for drilling young people into order-obsessed zombies. Further, if you’ll kindly do some research on composition theory (Tom Romano is a good start, then Wendy Bishop if you have time), you’ll find that MANY leading English teachers support allowing grammatical/spelling errors in informal pieces, especially rough drafts, in favor of allowing students’ language to “flow” from their thoughts without constant interruptions to correct small mistakes.
So kindly don’t tell me how to do my job.
/ applause!
I strongly concur.
You tell ‘em!
“Additionally”, there is a huge difference between academic writing and posting a comment on some random Internet site. Is all of popular fiction today worthless and the writers all classified idiots because they start sentences with “but”?Get off his back about it.
Also, since when are English teachers perfect? Mine makes spelling mistakes all the time, which is a bit hypocritical since she gives us .5 on every assignment we make a spelling or grammar mistake. (She also misspelled Count Rugen when we were reading The Princess Bride). However, she’s still an excellent teacher. She can analyze you to death and can pratically quote all of to Kill a Mockingbird from memory.
No rule currently exists that forbids one from beginning a sentence with a conjunction. And that is wonderful, because conjunctions are very useful words.
The true heart of a language should be found not it its grammar, but instead in its literature.
Exactly! In fact, I always thought it was hypocritical that my teachers would, one week, tell us how important the rules of grammar and spelling were, when the next week would be dedicated to poetry. I mean, honestly, spend a week on drilling the rules, then switch immediately to the linguistically-lawless domains of poetry? Way to send mixed messages.
I wouldn’t call poetry lawless. Poets, more than any other type of writer, ned to have control over their language. If they choose to omit punctuation or to insert it where it is not necessary, it is in order to produce a desired effect. I like to think of it as a “You’ve got to know the rules, so you can break them,” situation. If the teacher does a good job, then the week spent drilling grammar will enhance the class’s reading of poetry.
I feel like I know you from somewhere…
Yes, I agree. However, that’s exactly it — you can’t be an outlaw if there’s no law. Poetry is lawless because it has no rules except for the sense of purpose. But that’s partly it. Poetic license is almost an act of civil disobedience, where the poet is allowed to break a law in order to make some sort of point. And yes, it did greatly enhance the reading, but we never saw it that way in Highschool. It was more like a Karate Kid moment, where we were too busy being annoyed that we were painting the fence to realize exactly how practical the training was.
But even in this sense, the true power of language is found in bending or breaking the rules with some form of intent. The power of language is not in how it “should be” used, but in how it IS used, but the one is enhanced by the other.
We just read “The Jabberwocky” in my English class in the middle of our grammar unit, which pretty much goes against all spelling and English rules ever invented, so I strongly concur.
While “Jabberwocky” contains made up words, it does contain pretty standard sentence structures. Also, if you read “Humpty Dumpty Explicates Jabberwocky,” You’ll see that most of the invented words are combinations off real words (It’s been a while, but I think “slithy” is a mash up of lithe and slimy). The poem doesn’t break the rules so much as rewrite them.
This is where I think you, viscount and I disagree a bit. I’ll admit that this is probably semantics, but I see poetry not so much an abandonment of the rules as a twisting or recreating of them. Poems, at least the good ones, usually have some kind of logic, in addition to, or in leu of a central them, holding them together. There are no laws governing all poetry, but every poem has some law it abides by. Basically, where viscount see’s lawlessness, I see lawmakers. I agree that it might be hard for a lot of high school students to see that though. I know it took me a while. Oh, and I love the Karate Kid allusion; mind if I steal it sometime?
First, the Karate Kid reference. How could I stop you? Heh. It usually comes out a little more articulate, but the idea is there.
But no, I don’t think we disagree, we’re just not wording the same way. Lawlessness cannot be a permanent state, just as anarchy cannot be a permanent state. Eventually, somebody will gain an upper hand, take power, and govern the rest, which nullifies the anarchy, and likely creates a new system of law out of lawlessness. Poetry does this with language, but poetry as a field must therefore be a lawless one so that the poet can step in and establish a new order.
By the way, words that are a combination of two or more other words are called “portmanteau,” and yes, Jabberwocky is rife with them.
Aw, that’s unfair! I think more of our “truths” should be democratically elected. If the majority of people think that Luxembourg is a city in either Germany, France or Belgium, then by God it is!
Wikipedia is not ‘majority rule’. Silly human.
Silly human? There are humans on this board? unforgivable! Slay the mortals!
You slay me.
They are an affront to the forerunners!
Did you, by chance, get your sources from Wikipedia?
I once stumbled upon a Wikipedia entry that said deer are vicious creatures that chase cars and eat small children. Among other things that I can’t remember.
I once stumbled upon a Wikipedia that said that Nebraska was the domesticated llama farming capital of the world. Quite embarrassing, as I’m from there, and my Scottish friend asked me if this was true, and I honestly couldn’t confirm or deny it. I think it was a fallacy, in the end, but I still just don’t know.
I’ve been told that there are folk who deliberately post false information to Wikipedia just to see who will notice.
Considering some of the “articles” I’ve read, I’m inclined to believe this is true
I know someone who once erased the entire page on heart disease and just typed, “It’s bad.” Of course, then they deleted his account and tagged his computer so he couldn’t make another one, and the page was fixed within hours.
I once saw someone who erased an entire section of an article and replaced it with the word “penis”
not all deer are like the ones in a petting zoo. the bucks will ram cars with their horns and though i’ve never seen one eat a child I have seen them bite children.
I recall that teachers didn’t quite like encyclopedias either when I was in school. Like encyclopedias though Wikipedia provides a high level background to a topic and may point the way to primary sources for further research. Basing a paper on Wikipedia is like basing a paper on an encyclopedia entry, only with the encyclopedia you got (perhaps) a more error-free ride.
The study done by somebody somewhere said that there were some percentage chance of errors and it was right in line with the errors in paper encyclopedias.
link to study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Did this study take into account the deliberately misleading articles, or those written by schoolchildren?
At least paper enclycopaedias make a heart effort to be factual and current, as their income rides on their reputation for reliability
“Those written by schoolchildren?” A high school advanced calc student is way more qualified to write an article on trig than a fifty-year old Safeway clerk who failed the class when they took it.
Not to mention, “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader”, while, even though real 5th-graders might not know the answers to most of the questions, a 10th-grader certainly would. And it’s a bit obvious that most of the adults on there would not be qualified to write a Wikipedia article about anything.
And paper encyclopedias may make an effort to be current, by the time they’ll come out they’ll already be behind the times. Wikipedia articles are updated so fast. I checked a few hours after I heard about Michael Jackson’s death, and it was already changed.
Wow, someone really loves the wiki
Yes, some articles are written by schoolchildren. And some of these schoolchildren *shock* don’t know as much as they think they do. This is not to say schoolchildren are stupid so much as it’s to illustrate the point that wiki alone is not a reliable reference.
As has been mentioned, it’s a good starting point, but by no means a reliable standalone reference, by virtue of its “anyone can edit” nature.
As for the assumption that if someone does not do well on a TV show, they’re an idiot … wow, I’d like to see someone who knows everything about every subject and remembers everything they ever learned in school.
Most people forget what they don’t use regularly; people tend to have their areas that they’re good at, and as such may well be qualified to write an insightful article on that topic even if they can’t remember what the capital of Nigeria is.
Oh I wish the moderators would leave me alone! To repost:
===============================================
Wow, someone really loves the wiki
Yes, some articles are written by schoolchildren. And some of these schoolchildren *shock* don’t know as much as they think they do. This is not to say schoolchildren are stupid so much as it’s to illustrate the point that wiki alone is not a reliable reference.
As has been mentioned, it’s a good starting point, but by no means a reliable standalone reference, by virtue of its “anyone can edit” nature.
As for the assumption that if someone does not do well on a TV show, they’re an idiot … wow, I’d like to see someone who knows everything about every subject and remembers everything they ever learned in school.
Most people forget what they don’t use regularly; people tend to have their areas that they’re good at, and as such may well be qualified to write an insightful article on that topic even if they can’t remember what the capital of Nigeria is.
Heartily agrees with Caghs.
“Most people forget what they don’t use regularly; people tend to have their areas that they’re good at.” You made my point. That’s why schoolchildren would, in some instances, be more qualified to write an article, such as one on trig. And seriously, are you saying adults don’t have the problem of not knowing as much as they think they do?
But I agree that Wikipedia is not a stand-alone reference. I wasn’t arguing that point. But it’s a great place to start.
As for the 5th-grader thing…I’m not saying everyone on the show is an idiot. I’m saying that since most of the adults don’t know the answers to most of the questions, they obviously wouldn’t be qualified to write the Wikipedia article on whatever topic the question happens to be. All I was trying to say was that schoolchildren shouldn’t necessarily be counted as less of a valid author than an adult.
Partly because of anyone can edit Wikipedia. I may never understand why people want to submit false info in the first.
Someone needs to go back to English class.
*grabs a hammer, uses it to thump a “do not feed the troll” into the grass in front of Caolinn*
(that was “sign” BTW)
I heard once about a college professor who told his students not to use Wikipedia as a source, then he went into the article related to their paper and changed it the night before the paper was due. He could tell who used Wikipedia by their incorrect information.
But I do think, used correctly, Wikipedia could be a good source. I’d just use the links at the bottom of the page where it says they got their information and use those pages, if they’re from a credible source.
That is awesome!
I agree that it has the potential to be an excellent resource; for example, articles about a town written by folk who actually live there would be an invaluable source in comparison to an article written by someone who visited. Or an article on inuit culture written by a genuine inuit as opposed to an “expert” who knows all about inuit culture from books.
It has the potential, and always has had that potential.
Like anything of this nature, though, that potential is not realised due to those who misuse the tool.
Thats PEPOSTOROUS!! Do you know how many times I’ve seen ALL my teachers on Wikipedia?
It’s PREPOSTEROUS.
you also forgot to mention “this class” at least that’s what i used to hear in the 6th grade
ME TOO. We were constantly being told what a terrible class mine was.
so true. whats messed up though is that my professor wont allow anyone to use wikipedia, but she has it cited on all of her lectures.
I use Wikipedia as a starting point. You’d be dumb to leap headfirst into something you know nothing about. You don’t even know where to start. When I start with wikipedia, it gives me a bit of an idea about where I should look.
Just remember that WHAT is included in a Wiki article is biased. Go to any controversial subject and watch as whichever point of view that has the most people unemployed gets over-represented while the other side gets deleted or modified beyond recognition.
A search engine will give you a much more balanced approach.
Allow me to define “starting point”:
a) a point at which a search begins
b) the first stop
c) the point at which you start, hence the term “starting point”
Many times I have started at Wikipedia, got the gist of the topic, gone to another site (say, Encarta), searched the info there, then cross-referenced it via another source.
After doing this with several sources, some yoinked from wikipedia, some researched via Google or my old dusty encylopedias, I will gain the general consensus and use this to form an opinion or gain understanding.
I never use wikipedia as a standalone reference, but I often use it as a starting point.
Meh. My highschool teachers thought that about me, and…
My first semester at college? My GPA was 82%. Not bad for the kid who never showed up to class back then!
That’s pretty impressive to have an 82 GPA, when the highest possible GPA is 4.0.
If you look really really closely, you will see a “%” next to the 82
Worst thing is kids who don’t try and are lazy. Makes my job harder and then they suck up all my hard-earned money in welfare, sitting on their asses because they couldn’t be bothered to do work and graduate.
This site needs a “Like” button.
you should have included “missing work that you said you would have the next day but never returned”
You must be a school kid, mad at your teachers. I think if you ask a teacher, he will not tell you Wikipedia is bad. It is just another encyclopedea. However, they are just trying to help you. Because with the internet and computers and such of this day and age, simply copying over stuff from the Wikipedia is way too easy (and was not so easy with traditional encyclopedea).
They want you to learn, you know. So use Wikipedia (and other media) as a *source* for your work, and after studying multiple sources, do your coursework or project or paper or whatever on your own and do not copy!
Plenty of my high school teachers thought Wikipedia was the devil and guaranteed to be completely inaccurate.
I’m a school student who is not mad at her teachers but they all despise Wikipedia as the greatest of all evils in the academic research world. First thing they tell you when assigning school work: “Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source!” So you should ACTUALLY ask a teacher what they think about Wikipedia, and in 90% (if not more) of the cases you will get this response (or a very similar one)
In everything else that you say you are right… Wikipedia doesn’t make you learn, and many times information there is wrong… As a student who gets good grades I do what you say: research from many sources and then drawing up and writing down my personal conclusions.
Cite Wikipedia in your paper and you’ll lose a letter grade for each citation. QUOTE Wikipedia and it’s an automatic F.
Wikipedia’s bias is very well known. It was recently in the news for ONE single upper level editor changing hundreds and hundreds of articles about global warming to reflect the new-PC “climate change.” Information is not unbiased.
Is this any different from any print source that has to make it through the author’s bias, the editor’s bias, and the publisher’s bias?
Best not to cite Wikipedia, of course, but if the info has a little footnote, click on it, go to the link, and cite that. If there is no footnote, I google it and add the footnote when I’m done with my report.
Despite what teachers say, I couldn’t imagine doing a report without it.
I’m a starting teacher and believe that there is a better way around it. Wikipedia can be used, problem is you cannot use it as a source. One thing you can do, however is use it as a bridge to other sources at the links on the bottom of the page. More than likely, those sources are legit.
I’m fairly certain “cell phones” should have been included in this graph.
I did a presentation on credible sources and the first thing I presented was that wikipedia isn’t a credible source. But, as teachers, we must accept that it creeps into our students’ work. We have to be vigilant about pointing out when students don’t cite a source because of using wikipedia. But I did point out that there is nothing wrong with using wikipedia as a jumping-off point. Its sources are often quite useful, and serves as a great preliminary research list.
You forgot a piece for “Lame people who should never have reproduced.” There are so many kids out there whose parents just don’t get it. No guidance. No value for education. There are so many kids with no direction, discipline, or responsibility that are simply not reaching a fraction of their potential.
And when I say “discipline” I don’t necessarily mean behavior (thought that needs some work too.) Rather, discipline as in the drive to work hard and do your best. Not to just scrape by. “When can I be done?” “Is this good enough?” “I just don’t feel like it.” Yeah, I know we are all guilty of that from time to time, but come on! When that attitude starts in ELEMENTRY school these days? Sad.
elementary…
Spelling fail, my dear Watson.
Ack, the mods hate me! Everything I write today is flagged for moderation, and it’s all been very polite and unoffensive.
*sigh*
To reiterate:
“Woot!!! You tell ‘em!”
And yay, now it’s not flagged for moderation, but it IS put in the wrong place!
This was in response to Viscount’s very well-worded response to the anal grammar nazi LOL
In belen jesuit prep. school, this is 99% true.
Agreed! While it’s ok for finding out general info for yourself, it should never be used for research, any more than you would ask a random person in the street. Referencing Wikipedia above Year 9 should be an automatic fail!
Very true. Our teachers blocked wikipedia for a week at our school until many complaints led them to give back wikipedia
As a high school teacher ( at 25 with no fing clue how I ended up here but not unhappy with it) I must say that people who don’t try are exponentially more frustrating than those who use Wikipedia. At least those on Wiki are trying. The rest will be dead, in jail, or a public burden by the time they’re 25. But hey, I figure someone has to serve my burger,
I think Wikipedia is probably one of the most accurate places one can go for information, because of the simple fact that people love to jump on someone who is wrong on the internet.
OMG ppl! They r just COMMAS! Get OVER IT ALREADY!