4 comments

• 

  Lawrence

  4 years ago

  An interesting article and interesting that some academics are attacking the Wikopedia. It seems a case of the left (or the rightleft) attacking the left. Surely the problem is that there are not enough free academic texts online yet. Seems to be a case of Universities want money for education and anything that can be gotton for less is the antithisis of Modern University Education.
  
  Education is a right for the privildged, it really ought to be a right of the under priviledged not jsut the rich.
  reply
• 

  Robert M.

  3 years ago

  It's understandable that educational institutions would be threatened by the explosion of indexed information available to the average person on the internet. They don't want to go out of business, and in America, education is a VERY profitable business.
  
  One legititmate argument academics might make is that there is so much false information available.
  
  There are two additional arguments that need to be considered. First, with the consolidation of electronic and print media, the internet has the ability to play a key role in keeping democracy alive. Witness the role of bloggers in uncovering abuses and propaganda our local, state and federal government officials are involved in.
  
  Second, involves the issue of information itself. Universities are paid to propagate certain lines of theory and academic inquiry. Take, for example, allopathic medicine. At the turn of the century drug and chemical corporations began pumping funds into medical training institutions. Over time, other forms of medical practice which offer legitimate treatment regimens were pushed to the side. In this manner drug companies were able to shape the curriculum and have turned the majority of doctors practicing Western medicine into pill pushers for the drug manufacturers.
  
  Another example involves archeology. There is a conservative attitude among archeologists that automatically rejects any information that contradicts established theory. In his work "Forbidden Archeology" Michael Cremo has documented hundreds of cases where archeologists cover up or try to discredit out-of-hand evidence that has been uncovered showing intelligent, human activity from millions of years in earth's past. Robert Schoch in "Voices of the Rocks" shows the age of the Sphynx in Egypt is perhaps 10,000 - 20,000 years older than archeologists are willing to consider.
  
  Universities act as gatekeepers to legitimacy. All gatekeepers have the ability to something out, and something else in. The internet makes it difficult for those who exercise control over society to do so by keeping information in.
  reply
• 

  willbrando

  3 years ago

  Academic libraries pay big bucks to subscribe to journals and databases that are not available for free on the Internet. To ask a student to be aware of and make use of these subscribed to credible sources seems reasonable.
  
  It also seems reasonable to allow use of credible Internet resources.
  
  I think Wickopedia is often a great way to get general background information. However, it is problematic that anyone can edit and change the material. How doea one know it is correct? It is also problematic in that it's reporting of information is secondary and not always cited. How does one know where the information comes from?
  
  It would be silly to not read wickopedia. However, it would be damn foolish to think that it was all you needed to read or that it could be the core of an in-depth research paper.
  reply
• 

  brent

  5 months ago

  Great article. I truly believe our system of higher education is obsolete, but remains relevent via the artificial demand created due to 4 year degree requirements by employers. the university system has materialized education in the form of a BA/BS. You could have all the knowledge in the world, but because you didn't take some arbitrary set of classes you aren't qualified on paper. It's all a joke. Kids party for 4 years, work petty side jobs with no responsibility, and then we pat them on the back because they went to college and got a degree. Academics don't like wikipedia because it proves you can be educated for less than $20,000 a year. Yes, that's right, you don't need a football stadium, student lounge, and an overpaid professor to get information. How do you know the information at a University isn't biased? It's all common sense. Just like watching CNN or Foxnews... 99% of the time I can filter out the bias and take away the facts. It's all common sense. You don't need a scholar to do it for you.
  reply