Wikipedia vs. Textbooks

The point to this post is to prove to readers why Wikipedia is not as bad as they believe it to be... We all have heard the rumor that anybody can change anything on Wikipedia but that is actually not true. I used to think Wikipedia was an unreliable source too, until exploring all I did below: 

In the Wikipedia common craft video: Three important ideas/things from the video are, all Wikipedia material has to be presented fairly and is completely unbiased, there’s not a limit to the number of topics it can cover, and the most important thing from the video is the goal of Wikipedia is to provide everyone one the planet with knowledge

In a U.S History Textbook the Wounded Knee Massacre is presented simple, makes it sound stupid and simplifies it. The textbook gives no actual definition to the Wounded Knee Massacre and said it was in Arizona on December 28th which is false. 

In the Wikipedia article Wounded Knee Massacre  it said it was in Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Wikipedia gives Prelude, eyewitness accounts, aftermath, and much more. Gives amount of men, women, and children killed/ wounded. The website talks about the 2001 National Congress of American Indians and is up to date unlike the textbook.

• When exploring the Wikipedia website I went to “Scope” where it welcomes indigenous people of all races to the page and thanks them for their help in “improving the diversity of Wikipedia coverage.” Under “Progress update on our articles” it says there are 16,900 pages in the project of Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America. It is up to date as of today.
• The “talk” tab on Wikipedia takes you behind the scenes where people are giving sources and information about the topic. As I read through I saw stuff highlighted and crossed out by the people in charge of the page. They crossed out and deleted the sources and people that were not reliable.  
• Scroll all the way down and you will find the "Medals of Honor" tab. A Medal of Honor is the highest award you can get in the army. Native American activists have urged that the people who got medals during Wounded Knee Massacre get their medals taken away. 20 people were awarded medals for the “short and one sided battle.” "According to Lakota tribesman William Thunder Hawk, 'The Medal of Honor is meant to reward soldiers who act heroically. But at Wounded Knee, they didn't show heroism; they showed cruelty.'" This information is very in depth and very informing, it is also cited to the Website where it was found! 
• The users who created the Wounded Knee Massacre page are Sdgjake, Piratedan, and V8m8i. Sdgjake is from South Dakota and edits mostly South Dakota related articles. He majored in Computer Science then got bachelor of science. Piratedan has a bachelor of arts in history, and a master of arts in European history. V8m8i  is a military historian colonel in US Army. All of these users that created the pageare very well educated and have the qualifications to be writing about the Wounded Knee Massacre and editing it. I trust their answers and facts because of the sources and their qualifications and experience.
• The “talk” buttons beside of the three users shows the behind the scene action and comments between the user and people wanting to add information to the page. All three users were very polite and had appropriate replies to all the people. They gave specific reasoning to why the source wouldn’t be used in the articles and how to fix that. They reply to every person who contacts them and are very good with forming their replies.
• The page on the Wounded Knee Massacre really does not have any obvious bias. "Edward S. Godfrey; Captain; commanded Co. D of the Seventh Cavalry:
• "I know the men did not aim deliberately and they were greatly excited. I don't believe they saw their sights. They fired rapidly but it seemed to me only a few seconds till there was not a living thing before us; warriors, squaws, children, ponies, and dogs ... went down before that unaimed fire."[28] (Godfrey was a Lieutenant in Captain Benteen's force during the Battle of the Little Bighorn)[29]" This is an eyewitness quote, I like this one because he was understanding and polite of the shooters despite all of the circumstances. He offers alternate points of view and is not biassed. If this quote in the article would have said, "The man meant to aim and killed everything on purpose, I hate him." Then, that would of been biassed opinion on the Wounded Knee Massacre Page, but overall the page was not biassed and it took a look from both sides of the Massacre. 

In the article Wikipedia As Trusted Source for Ebola these three quotes prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information.

1. “The 300 or so core editors of Wikipedia’s medical articles tend to be highly educated, Dr. Heilman said. A recent survey, he said, found that half of that core group work as, or are studying to be, health care providers and 85 percent have completed college.”
2. “The initial skepticism about Wikipedia was mainly structural: how could you trust an article in an “encyclopedia that anyone can edit?” The growing confidence in the site — certainly when it comes to public health articles — in part reflects the fact that much of Wikipedia is not edited by just “anyone.””
3. “Many impediments exist to someone casually editing the Ebola article. Only registered Wikipedia editors with at least some experience are permitted to edit the page, and the requirement for sourcing is much more rigorous than for other Wikipedia entries. Newspaper articles, for example, do not cut it.”

 

I believe Wikipedia is a way more trustable source than any textbook created by a publisher. Students need to learn and textbooks obviously aren't the best way for that to happen. According to A Textbook Example of What's Wrong with Education in fact there's not an actual author of these textbooks, textbooks don't even follow state guidelines, and finally, "Every adoption state allows private citizens to review textbooks and raise objections. Publishers must respond to these objections at open hearings." That means that pretty much anyone can request for something to be in the textbooks. Textbook companies and publishers do everything they can to make money, they don't truly care about what is in them or what students are learning. Textbooks in some classrooms are the only way students learn and their only source of information. Teachers shouldn't be teaching with solely textbooks since they aren't a good source. In the article No Books, No Problem: Teaching Without a Text  teaching has no need for books, if a child is truly learning they're probably not using books. The author, Geoff Ruth says, "While some textbooks are excellent, most bore my students and frustrate me... Without a textbook, I can create curriculum that engages students by relating science to their everyday lives." Although, Ruth does recommend that first year teachers don't decide to ditch the textbook until the get use to the criteria and to teaching. Teaching without a textbook is possible and although it is probably tough to find other tools to teach with it is best for the students. Wikipedia for a trusted source of Ebola proves that Wikipedia is in fact a very informative and helpful sites that covers all topics. In the article doctors and other well educated people discuss how reliable and well informed WIkipedia is about Ebola and other medical aspects. Educated peoples and doctors are the ones that run the web pages on Wikipedia and the requiring of sources does not even allow newspaper articles, there are very strict guidelines they have to follow on Wikipedia. So, in my opinion teachers should slowly start teaching without a textbook and teaching through other fun and creative technological sources.