50 Times Teachers Hung The Funniest Signs In Their Classrooms And They Ended Up Being Praised Online

At least wikipedia is a good starting point for further reseach. Especially the articles that cite sources. And if you see something that needs improvement, you can correct it yourself (with sources preferrably) for the next reader.

I was told that if you use Wikipedia, go to the sources section and use that.

Further instruct to check the Wikipedia citation.

I agree. But regardless. Just search on multiple platforms. Better safe than sorry

That was then. It isn't as easy to edit a Wikipedia page these days.

I could put whatever I wanted on Wikipedia for s**t sake. When did it stop being a joke site?

Ive heard a ted talk where someone said that the bashing wikipedia by teachers is one of the biggest flaws in education of the last decades. Imagine if instead a good research approach with wikipedia would have been propagated and would now stand against all the social media propaganda and fox "news"and the likes.. to prove the point I recommend: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Yeah, it really makes you wonder why they have so many newspapers delivered to the staff room!

Very frightening.

Wikipedia is actually pretty well policed. If you f**k with it, it will likely get taken down in an hour or two

Yes, but this can actually work in its favor. If someone edits in rubbish (unverified gossip or conspiracy theory) on The Beatles Wiki page, there is a large army of fans that will crush the minion!

True. It is subject to a number of biases and other problems. However, it is a good place to start... "The online encyclopedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings. Researchers, teachers, journalists, and public officials do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source. It is seen as a valuable "starting point" for researchers when they pass over content to examine the listed references, citations, and sources. Academics suggest reviewing reliable sources when assessing the quality of articles."

oK tEAchEr

It's a good place to start. It claims itself to be "verifiable" not the Truth. Nothing is infallible. The best thing about it is that it cites its sources - one of the key things conspiracy theorists and rumour mongers do not do. Those sources can lead to new and verifiable information. It is a very useful tool. But like fire and screwdrivers, should be used with caution.

You don’t know anything about Wikipedia, do you?

Wikipedia is actually pretty great. I edited it once when i was younger and in 45 minutes it was reversed and i got banned lol

I disagree. I have found that people seldom fact check, even their deepest held opinions, at any age. It is hard to get your head around how much bad info is out there and even the most innocent ideas, collective or individual memories, or what we take as "fact" are often wrong. And when we (and by we I mean everyone of every age) actually do bother to check, it's usually to either try and prove someone wrong or out if idle curiosity. If you doubt, try randomly fact checking 5 things you think you know a day. It will blow your mind as to how much bad info we have going around. We are truly in the misinformation age.

Not from what I've seen, Skippy.

Ageist comment. Just stop.

Fox News isn't about facts. They are well aware of it. They intentions slant stories by leaving out vital context, not or under reporting opposing views, and mixing opinion with facts. The sad part is Fox News doing this has lead MSNBC and CNN to alter their formats to this type of behavior. Of the big 3 news orgs, all of them of guilty of this. Although Fox does it worse, the end is the same. Good journalism has been exchanged for ratings and viewership. I don't want anyone spoon feeding my news. As an adult I am capable of making my own decisions and opinions. They need to bring back the rules a company must follow before they can call themselves news, bring back the limits as to how many and what type of mediums a parent company can own in the news industry, and make the Big Three run a disclaimer stating something to the effect of "the following stories are opinions".

Step 1: Check your emotions -- Was that a kneejerk reaction? Step 2: Check the source -- Where do you get your news? CBS? NBC? ABC? CNN? NY Times? 3. Check the claim -- Fox News is owned by the British Murdoch family. The remaining liberal news stations are all owned by the same five companies: Comcast, Walt Disney, AT&T, ViacomCBS, and Sony. Who owns your favorite stations? These same broadcast companies also own newspapers and journals. Now the question comes down to this: When you channel surf CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS, are you truly getting a variety of news sources or are you merely getting an illusion of choice?

Not true. This specifically tells you to engage with Wikipedia and top google search results to determine the trustworthiness of a source. Those are controlled by mainstream voices, and would declare those as trustworthy. It's about stopping critical thinking, and engaging with a subject matter unless the writer is accepted by the current powers that be.