Two cynicisms

[prog]

I think that "References in Fiction" sections are a blight on Wikipedia. I guess I can't reasonably write a manifesto calling for their systematic deletion, since they actually are useful in intent. But, once a topic's list of above-the-fold media references has been exhausted, the section proceeds to overflow with utterly unencyclopedic pointers to obscure anime, video games, and webcomics. Fancruft. And I am very hesistant to delete it because I don't want to catch fancrud.

Come to think of it I have never seen a line in an article's history log that read "Deleted unencyclopedic fancruft" or something similar. And for some reason this makes me want to start doing so.

---

Subscribed to nintendo_ds coz I wanna have a better handle on what-all's going on with my favorite video game system, and am reminded why I don't belong to more LJ communities. Too many posts have been sincere but foolish, mostly young people asking questions that are answerable with one word, that being either "eBay" or "Google". I don't actually say that, though, coz it would sound awfully snooty, so I just leave them be.

I normally love answering questions (and seeing questions answered well by others) but some questions are so broad and flat that you just know that the person hasn't even bothered with other of these two First Sources. The posters' evident youth makes it even less forgivable in my eyes, coz it's not like they have decades of life without Google to adapt away from.

Maybe they don't teach Google in school yet, the teachers being mostly old enough to have themselves been students pre-Web? This is my hypothesis.

Comments

[prog.livejournal.com]

Boy, I would love to be part of a program of teaching how to use Google well. We should talk about it offline sometime if you want to pursue it further (not that I can promise the time for any personal involvment beyond conversation, at the moment). (I don't know how many people around here know about my background in education, specifically technology education for kids... for the most part it all happened before I moved to MA. I want to tie back into it again someday.)

"Don't use Google" makes me goggle; how incredibly ignorant. I immediately think of abstinence-based sex ed, but in a way it's even stupider than that because it's based on notions that are just factually incorrect at core.

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

You're right, I didn't know you had a background in tech ed! That's very cool! I would love to sit down and talk about this more! But it will need to be in August, after I get back from a month in Ghana of (maybe? probably? who knows!) teaching high schoolers Word and Excel.

As for the "don't use Google" attitude, I exaggerated it somewhat for effect. It's a reaction to getting a lot of papers that use nothing *but* Google, and use it to find and cite some pretty questionable sources. It's not that they don't think anyone should use Google ever; it's more that they forbid students from using the free web on their papers with the exception of a few specific sites, to force them to get more comfortable with print resources. Which I get, and am not entirely opposed to...I just wish the "use one encyclopedia, one website, and two other print resources" formula could be a little less artificial.