Skip to content
  • Kategorien
  • Aktuell
  • Tags
  • Beliebt
  • World
  • Benutzer
  • Gruppen
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Standard: (Kein Skin)
  • Kein Skin
Einklappen

other.li Forum

  1. Ăśbersicht
  2. Uncategorized
  3. omg, THIS

omg, THIS

Geplant Angeheftet Gesperrt Verschoben Uncategorized
4 Beiträge 1 Kommentatoren 10 Aufrufe
  • Ă„lteste zuerst
  • Neuste zuerst
  • Meiste Stimmen
Antworten
  • In einem neuen Thema antworten
Anmelden zum Antworten
Dieses Thema wurde gelöscht. Nur Nutzer mit entsprechenden Rechten können es sehen.
  • ? Offline
    ? Offline
    Gast
    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
    #1

    omg, THIS

    I was bordering on apoplectic when I first heard about K-12 teachers forbidding students from using Wikipedia but then teaching them to use LLMs.

    đź§µ
    https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/hi-its-me-wikipedia-and-i-am-ready-for-your-apology

    ? 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
    0
    • ? Gast

      omg, THIS

      I was bordering on apoplectic when I first heard about K-12 teachers forbidding students from using Wikipedia but then teaching them to use LLMs.

      đź§µ
      https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/hi-its-me-wikipedia-and-i-am-ready-for-your-apology

      ? Offline
      ? Offline
      Gast
      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
      #2

      I recently found myself comparing the articles about the Louisiana Purchase on Britannica (that flag-bearer of acceptability in K-12 education) and Wikipedia (still forbidden in many schools). It was…illuminating.

      The Britannica is better written. It flows well. It is approachable. It proceeds from broad overview to coherent detail in a way that helps meet the reader where they’re at. The professional editorial oversight shows.

      1/

      ? 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
      0
      • ? Gast

        I recently found myself comparing the articles about the Louisiana Purchase on Britannica (that flag-bearer of acceptability in K-12 education) and Wikipedia (still forbidden in many schools). It was…illuminating.

        The Britannica is better written. It flows well. It is approachable. It proceeds from broad overview to coherent detail in a way that helps meet the reader where they’re at. The professional editorial oversight shows.

        1/

        ? Offline
        ? Offline
        Gast
        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
        #3

        The Wikipedia article is pretty good, but it’s overwhelming. It flows poorly. It lurches from big picture to over-specific details in a way that makes it hard to approach the article if you don’t already know the material.

        The cacophony of voices behind it, though well-synthesized, still shows.

        2/

        ? 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
        0
        • ? Gast

          The Wikipedia article is pretty good, but it’s overwhelming. It flows poorly. It lurches from big picture to over-specific details in a way that makes it hard to approach the article if you don’t already know the material.

          The cacophony of voices behind it, though well-synthesized, still shows.

          2/

          ? Offline
          ? Offline
          Gast
          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
          #4

          The Wikipedia article also includes this sentence in its opening paragraph:

          âťťHowever, France only controlled a small fraction of this area, most of which was inhabited by Native Americans; effectively, for the majority of the area, the United States bought the preemptive right to obtain Indian lands by treaty or by conquest, to the exclusion of other colonial powers.âťž

          Britannica has nothing like that. It discusses the Louisiana Purchase without a single mention that the indigenous people of North America even exist.

          3/

          1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
          0
          • monkee@chaos.socialM monkee@chaos.social shared this topic
          Antworten
          • In einem neuen Thema antworten
          Anmelden zum Antworten
          • Ă„lteste zuerst
          • Neuste zuerst
          • Meiste Stimmen


          • Anmelden

          • Anmelden oder registrieren, um zu suchen
          • Erster Beitrag
            Letzter Beitrag
          0
          • Kategorien
          • Aktuell
          • Tags
          • Beliebt
          • World
          • Benutzer
          • Gruppen