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. Übersicht
  2. Uncategorized
  3. omg, THIS

omg, THIS

Geplant Angeheftet Gesperrt Verschoben Uncategorized
4 Beiträge 1 Kommentatoren 10 Aufrufe
  • Älteste 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.

    🧵
    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.

      🧵
      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:

          ❝However, 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.❞

          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
          • Älteste zuerst
          • Neuste zuerst
          • Meiste Stimmen


          • Anmelden

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