Wikipedia argument

Because 21st century learning is starting to be incorporated in the school systems, I believe teachers need to be more adaptive to the use of research through the internet. In order for students to gain a full understanding of what a topic means, they need to have the ability to reach and view several different sources. These sources can be found just about anywhere on the internet, including Wikipedia. Although the dominate claim is that Wikipedia is full of false information that is unreliable, it can't be knocked completely. Wikipedia was created with the intention of giving everybody access to information. It IS run by volunteers who post statistics and information about whatever topic is being brought up; however, Wikipedia has rules that every poster has to follow. The first rule is verifiability.... Users can't just post anything they want on the site. It must be reviewed by other users and come from a source that has also been reviewed and trusted. Each and every statistic and sentence that has been posted on Wikipedia has to be a proven fact before the other volunteers will allow it to be seen. If it isn't, the post will be taken down. According to The New York Times, Wikipedia has been one of the very few trusted sources for information on the Ebola outbreak. "Once the butt of jokes for being the site where visitors could find anything, true or not, Wikipedia in recent years has become a more trusted source of information — certainly for settling bar bets, but even for weighty topics like Ebola. "It is because Wikipedia is such a recognized brand — obviously the C.D.C. is still much more authoritative than we will ever be — that people will click on that link,” said Dr. Jacob de Wolff, 37, an internist at Northwick Park Hospital in London, who founded Wikiproject Medicine in 2004 and has seen it go from obscurity to mockery to acceptance. (New York Times, Oct. 26, 2014)." Teachers should also consider using Wikipedia over textbooks. Most of the textbooks that are created aren't always in the students best interest. According to Tamim Ansary, a former editor and author of the article A Textbook Example of What's Wrong With Education, "Most of these books fall far short of their important role in the educational scheme of things. They are processed into existence using the pulp of what already exists, rising like swamp things from the compost of the past. The mulch is turned and tended by many layers of editors who scrub it of anything possibly objectionable before it is fed into a government-run "adoption" system that provides mediocre material to students of all ages." With Wikipedia, students have access to the most updated information possible. Some textbooks are so old that most of the content doesn't apply anymore. Some teachers have already scrapped their textbooks. For example, Geoff Ruth, a grade level Chemistry teacher states, "While some textbooks are excellent, most bore my students and frustrate me. "Readability formulae" produce mind-numbing prose. Since textbooks are marketed nationally, they must comply with content standards for all states, resulting in ten-pound tomes that cover all topics superficially. Many promulgate scientific misconceptions or even outright errors."