Why do teachers hate wikipedia?

It owns and is G0dlike. It is time saving, so thorough, has neutrality i.e. isn't one sided. In the case that there may be personal beliefs portrayed more strongly by the writer it informs you at the top the neutrality of the article is disputed, etc.

Has many people review it in the discussion boards to ensure that it is accurate, is updated faster than any other encyclopedia, it never goes out of date, the articles have so many references! I can't think of anything bad about Wikipedia. It has taught me so much, has millions of articles!

So why do teachers always say NO WIKIPEDIA in your bibliographies?

they smarter than them,

wikipedia is great but sometimes there are errors in the info

i like wikipedia... but i think teachers have a problem with it because anyone can go and change the information on the page. They could change it to say horses have six legs, so i can see where they are coming from.

cuz anyone in the world can edit and change wikipedia at any given time.

For example, let's say that you typed up an A+ report on basketball legends. You got all the info from wikipedia and nowhere else. You type up the citation page and you put wikipedia.com/.............

You can Bull Shite the whole essay, go to wikipedia and change it so that all the info is true based on what you're essay is.

Either it is for that reason or because dumb people go into it and change info and it is not true, so then everything that you say from wikipedia is false and you get a worse grade.

most of the information is correct, but because anyone can edit it there will always be inconsistencys.

teachers think that the information on it can be easily edited and is unreliable. but teachers are stupid anyways. so you just keep on using wikipedia.

well, then theres that whole its WAY too easy to get all your info from one source thing! teachers are paid to make you work, learn, etc., and going to wikipedia and finding everything you want to know is just too simple.

Because you are not doing the research. You are letting wikipedia do all the work then just creating a synopsis of what you read. Teacher's teach learning not copying.

unlike encyclopedias and other sources, wikipedia has yet to be identified as a "trusted" source, mostly lying with the fact that anyone can go in and alter information. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, for example, is backed by and written by scholars and academics and therefore is seen as trusted (and for many decades too). Wikipedia is still the new kid on the block though, so it will take time.

I personally believe that once "respected" individuals are placed to oversee the different areas of knowledge within Wikipedia, then maybe it will be seen as a more respected resource. But for the time being, it still has a ways to go.

They say no wikipedia, because wikipedia explains things in terms someone can understand, and has 99% of the information right there. That's all good and all, butsooner or later everyone would just say they found it on Wikipedia.

Back in my youth, before Al Gore invented teh internets, teachers would say "No Encyclopedias".

We'd often correct them - "No Encyclopediae"

But I digress.

The bottom line is that they don't want you to rely on a one-size-fits-all reference source.

Aside from that, there's no guarantee that the Wiki you're reading wasn't edited by a raving lunatic.

But, it is what it is - so read the Wiki, take notes and check the bibliographical sources cited there (just like we did with encyclopediae)

Wikipedia is a colaboration of peoples research and the sources are simply not trustworthy.

I don't understand their hate for Wikipedia either, but I think it's because they don't take the time to learn how exactly it works or how they can tell whether something's reliable (who can blame them?).
The blue numbers as superscript after a sentence take you to the references they got the information from when you click them. Usually, the sentences that don't have the reference numbers are unsourced and therefore may be unreliable. That's what teachers are afraid of.
What I usually do when a sentence or section is good for whatever work I'm doing is I just go to the reference and use it as a reference myself. That way, I get the info, it's reliable, and good old Wikipedia helped me get it.

probably because their students rely on it and edit it...

The students rely too much on them and think that the information in wikipedia is 100% correct.

They hate wikipedia, because since anyone can change information in it, the information could be inaccurate. The reason why teachers don't want you to use wikipedia during school hours, is because it provides links to game sites that school can't block without blocking wikipedia.

Because people can write inaccurate stuff. Like once I went to Knots Berry Farm on Wikipedia and instead of it saying Snoopy Camp it said Poopy Camp. People can write anything.

because it's one of the best sources out there, and they don't want you to copy that work because it's so great

Since everymember can fix anything in the article, Wikipedia has a lot of errors. Plus, when you do homework, teachers want you to use what you knew, not going to an encyclopedia

Wikipedia, sorry to say, can be edited by ANYONE who wants to. Some people might put in something that isn't true. There are some pages that are not editable by the nonmembers, but members can still put nonsense on the page. In other words, it's too unreliable for kids to use.

I totally agree with you that wiki rocks. All those points are strong it just takes one person to mess up an article. I could edit an article and it could be wrong. Now I've experimented before and in about an hour my topic was deleted. I tried a more obscure topic and it was deleted in about 30 hours. So if you would have read that topic and copied my info, it would have been wrong. It was changed back so if you were lucky you would have had the correct answer but teachers dont want you to be wrong at all. Theyd rather have you spend extra time to go to a reliable site and make sure it is correct.

Teachers, come from another planet, learn it don't copy it.

I understand why they hate it, that is because you copy your work from there and don't care about understanding it. Thats the teachers point of view.

Teachers don't want Wikipedia in bibliographies for a few reasons. One, it is no secret that the school system is designed to be biased and to indoctrinate children with pro-government views (why wouldn't the government use its schools to promote itself?). Due to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't exclude viewpoints other than that of the school system, they don't like it (there are actually college professors who quit Wikipedia because they are trying to bias the articles and usually, with the exception of Global Warming articles, can't do so).

Besides their bias against Wikipedia, they are overreacting to sensationalist media reports (the same phenomenon can be observed with Myspace) that portray Wikipedia as inaccuarate and filled with vandalism (in fact, Wikipedia catches almost all of the vandalism within 15 minutes and the article on John Seigenthaler is now one of the best-written articles on Wikipedia and nobody gets away with vandalizing it).

The best thing to do is to use Wikipedia, but to cite the sources from the Wikipedia articles instead of Wikipedia. That way, you still benefit from that information and the teacher still thinks that you didn't use Wikipedia.

i would suggest still using wiki but using the sources cited in the articles rather than the articles themselves. It will put a great deal of information in front of you that you may not have found otherwise and should get you past the whole anti-wiki teacher bias.

nop. i am a teacher and my students used wikipedia as a source of information for their assignments. i am from a wikipedia generation so i dun have much grudge against it. we have to understand that most teachers are from the generation that internet is nothing but entertainment and do not look at the world wide web like how we look at it. to us, its a mountain of information on the internet.

most teachers especially who are not from our generation, find it better to trust books than wikipedia.
so its better to use both of them to me . cheers!!

They say it is bad becasue anyone can edit. But what the teachers do not realize is that the information that is wrong is changed back within minutes. Wiki is a netural point of view so you should get both sides of the story or issue. It gives sources for most articles so you can see were the information came from. Teachers do not like it becaue they are afraid of tecnolgoy, why do you think teachers so that you need so many sources from books. That is what they had when they went to school.

They don't want you to start copying from Wikipedia and passing the work as your own.They also do not want you to depend too much on Wikipedia so much that you cannot do your homework without Wikipedia.They do not want to see the whole class all using Wikipedia and that they had to mark all your work which are all the same.

Anyway,maybe some of the articles in Wikipedia contains errors,and when you just copy all the text in Wikipedia,you may get lower grades compared to you using your own brain and knowledge to do the work.

Teachers think that school is a place for learning and that there is no 'cheating' when their students are doing the work they gave.It applies too to cheating during an exam.You can't possibly print out some short paragraphs on some articles on Wikipedia,and stick them underneath your table,and during the exam,cheat by refering to the paper.You will most likely get caught cheating this way.

Cause it's a bunch of worthless crap written by BS artists who think they are gods. Who then use their god like powers to delete the work of anyone more intelligent then themselves. In a lame effort to keep themselves from looking like the fools they are.

Because they think that the people don't know anything and they don't like the idea of a FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit because they think that the common people have no knowledge.

I personally love Wikipedia but like the site says it's edited by anyone and is disputed. Meaning some of it can just be opinion and not true fact.

TEACHERS HATE IT B/C SOME OF THE INFO IS NOT CORRECT. IF U DIDN'T KNOW, WIKIPEDIA IS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE...THAT'S WHY THERE IS ALWAYS A LITTLE LINK THAT SAYS "EDIT"..

WHERE A PERSON AS A VIEW CAN INPUT OR TAKE OUT INFO.....

DON'T TRUST WIKIPEDIA IN EVERYTHING U READ ON THE SITE...