Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> It presents the problem that it is utterly unreliable.
>
> There was an article on Serialism in Music, by musicologists
> specializing in 20th-century music, and it was rewritten by a
> self-proclaimed expert in everything into utter nonsense.
>
> How would a high school student know whom to believe?

How would a high school student know who to believe w/o wikipedia or
before it? Because someone was published on paper? What happened to
"don't believe everything you read"? At least in Wikipedia, if an
article is rewritten, all the old versions are there too to peruse
anytime. Can't really say that about a book or a newspaper...I think
that is what good teachers do - impart a sense of the skeptical and/or
curious while teaching the tools for finding answers for oneself among
conflicting opinions.

Probably more important then citing wikipedia or any other individual
source, online or off, is the ability to read critically, identify and
sort through relevant and often conflicting opinions on a topic, and
decide accordingly.

Were I a HS teacher I doubt if I would be satisfied with a paper that
relied *solely* on wikipedia, but then again I would not be happy with
any paper that relied on any individual source either. Would any of us
here be satisfied with that?

>
> The wiki- "philosophy" is an outgrowth of postmodernism, with its claim
> that there is no truth and no such thing as expertise.

Huh? Many if not most wikipedia articles are signed, and the history of
each page is there, and updates are always possible if there are errors
or for any other reason. Each page also has a concurrent discussion page
where issues can be hashed out - did you know that? I always review the
discussion and history pages when deciding how much to rely on the
details in the main text, I recommend others do to. I also am looking at
other sources all the time too besides wikipedia, but at least wikipedia
gives those meta tools for reading critically- few other sites come
close to that.

Anyway, I was taught in school that an encyclopedia is just a jumping
off point for information on any topic, not to be taken as absolute.
That seems fair still, and I think wikipedia is fine with that. And also
with acknowledging it is "a work in progress".

Best,

Barry