The education system seems to fear change - it wants to teach from books and for students to memorize and regurgitate material.
In the modern world, and in the future, regurgitating knowledge will have less and less importance in our daily lives. The Internet (or its equivalent) will be always available, always on-hand as a tool, a resource, and a reference.
We must, MUST, teach kids to take advantage of technology as best they can, rather than stressing them over whether they can name the capitals of all 50 states or not. They can Google that information if they ever need it. And that information may change, a quick Google query in the future will give them the newest, most useful information available, rather than their dated 5th grade knowledge.
It's much more important to teach kids HOW TO LEARN, than it is to shovel facts down their throats. If a kid can grow up confidently knowing that nearly any information he'll ever need is immediately at his fingertips, he'll be much better off than a kid that grows up feeling like a failure because he consistently regurgitate facts from his history or science textbook. It's EASY to give kids this confidence. It might even be cheaper. And it's much more practical.
If you disagree, please share your thoughts below. I really don't understand how the education system can ignore the evolution of the Internet/Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a very valid source. It's self-correcting, up-to-the-second (literally) updated, and above all, citations are required for any statements made in a particular article. You must cite your source, and if good sources are cited for a piece of information, how is this any less valid than any other source A of information which cites yet other sources B and C for the information contained in A? If Wikipedia cites B and C for the same information, why is it less reliable or credible? Wikipedia is creating a new wave of information awareness. By all means, let's make the wave as large as possible.
Wikipedia, along with any other resource, should be viewed as a untrustworthy summary of the sources the article/whatever cites. If it doesn't cite anything, then its completely useless - and wikipedia knows that. Wikipedia moderators flag any article that doesn't consistently contain citations for the "facts" it contains.
Again, it comes down to user-integrity; read the flags at the top of the article, and check out the sources yourself. If you notice a fact that's not cited, its YOUR responsibility to flag or cite it. ALL users of wikipedia share that responsibility because everyone that uses it can (and should) contribute back to it, in whatever form they can.
There's also a difference between taking information as fact from a reliably tested research paper and taking information posted by a 14 year old kid. I agree that reliability is difficult to come by and that kids should be taught this, but Wikipedia in particular may not be the best resource for teaching kids.
reliability... Professors don't like wikipedia because they're afraid of its widespread availability, ease of use, and comprehensiveness.
Students need to be TAUGHT that NO information they collect is EVER guaranteed to be reliable - that idea should be an integral part of the curriculum. It doesn't matter if a parent/teacher/official/book/magazine/website/etc states something as fact, they could all be completely wrong/immoral/illogical, and you need to investigate and verify their sources before you believe the fact. KIDS NEED TO BE TAUGHT THIS.
I agree, to an extent. Children should be taught how to use technological resources; however, Wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable source of information. With multiple people allowed to edit their input/info into Wikipedia, not all the information coming from the site may be valid. (side note: never site Wikipedia as a resource in a research paper! Apparently professors don't like that! haha)
