Yahoo! Answers, A Librarian's Worst Nightmare 252
Slate has an interesting look at the realm of online question and answer forums. Yahoo! Answers is boasting over 120 million users and 400 million answers placing it just behind Wikipedia for most visited education/reference site on the internet. While this may be a great insight into crowd mentality and search preferences, it seems to be a "complete disaster as a traditional reference tool." "For educators fretting that the Internet is creating a generation of 'intellectual sluggards,' the problem isn't just that Yahoo!'s site helps ninth-graders cheat on their homework. It's that a lot of the time, it doesn't help them cheat all that well. [...] Like Yahoo! Answers, Wikipedia isn't perfect. But for savvy browsers who know how to use it, Wikipedia is an invaluable source of factual information. In the last two years, there's been a heated debate over whether Wikipedia is as trustworthy as Encyclopedia Britannica. This obscures a crucial point: Wikipedia is at least reliable enough that such a question can be asked. Take my word for it--no one is going to make any such claims about Yahoo! Answers any time soon."
Re:Comparing Apples and... What?? (Score:2, Insightful)
so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
we don't want to regulate online dating, slashdot agrees: this is a nanny state
likewise:
we don't want regulate wikipedia or yahoo answers: THIS IS A NANNY STATE
people ask random friends advise all the time. lots of it is pointless or toxic or ignorant. people need to use their minds to filter the good from the bad. we need to learn to trust people to make decisions themselves
end of non-story
So where is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different than 20 years ago?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2179393 [slate.com]
TFA doesn't even use the word librarian once.
Just trolling for page hits I assume.
Approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Now-a-days Google is my card catalogue, Wikis and Answer sites are my reference material. I hold information I cull from the internet with the same amount of trust as the books I used to use. I'm not sure if I first heard it in high school or not but the same rule applies to both:
Check your references before you even begin to draw conclusions.
blame the 'tools' not the tools (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good Enough for College (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks!
Re:So where is the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
What was easy to see, however, were people who just had it plain wrong. And there were several cases where two identical, crappy, reports were given to me. These people ended up having to do a lot of more work in the end! Idiots! The process of learning itself is actually copying stuff from others, but in the process getting to understand the difference between good stuff and bad stuff by comparing to what you already know and makes sense. If you are too lazy to do the last part, you won't come far even if you copy from the most reliable resource.
Many scientists use wikipedia for example, there are derivations of exotic formulae out there you will hardly find anywhere else. But they will make pretty sure the statements there are double-checked (working the calculations you find out by yourself is the best way here).
Can I just point out (Score:3, Insightful)
Get this. The person choosing the "best" answer is the same person who doesn't have a fucking clue and had to ask the question in the first place. I have no idea who thought that was a good idea, but I think they should get a medal for "The most ironic contribution to world knowledge".
Yes and no, sorta (Score:3, Insightful)
If used as you describe, true, it's _sometimes_ better than nothing.
Then again, sometimes worse than nothing. An incomplete, distorted understanding of something may actually compound the problem, instead of making it any better. E.g., an incomplete, distorted mis-understanding of each other is largely why we have a perpetual conflict in the Middle East, or Islamist nuts blowing themselves up. E.g., an equally unqualified monkey reinforcing an already wrong idea, might just give people enough confidence to do something very stupid, instead of staying at the stage of wondering about it. Etc.
Seriously, we already have people taking their knowledge from movies, urban legends, PR, whatever. You can read about some of them, for example, on the various "dumbest criminals" lists. A site looking like a more reputable way to get a quick and supposedly informed answer, might just fool more people.
The second problem is that more and more schoolkids and students are using those as a substitute for learning or thinking for themselves. Now this isn't necessarily a fault of the site itself. And if it worked for anyone, I'd blame the school first. Nevertheless, it might bite us all in the arse later. Hard.
Re:Approach (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So where is the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Newbie. Many of us remember well the times before AOL and MSN dumped their user mass onto Internet.
When they were proprietary BBS networks, everthing was well in the world. Spam was almost non-existent, you didn't have to explain everything to the users, who were clever enough to figure out that inability to ping vax.ox.ac.uk didn't mean you had to reinstall your OS or call a guy in Bangalore to help you. The lion was grazing with the sheep. Or at least devouring them quietly.
The problem Yahoo Answers faces is that you can have trust or you can have anonymity, but you can't have both. In a small professional circle, you can generally trust the answers, because there are enough peers who would jump your shit if you gave wrong answers. In an anonymous world-wide forum, you can't. There's no accountability, and the volume is too high for peers to review anything. Especially if you get paid to provide answers, but NOT paid to provide corrections to answers.
If Yahoo! wants to gain credibility for their QA section, they need to introduce paid overseers that cross-check answers (and each other) and with the authority to add red ink comments inside other people's answers, axe payments to those who give wrong answers, and give a Yahoo! paid bonus to those who give extremely good answers.
Let the users see how well Yahoo! professionals (and not other sheep^Wusers) rate them.
This can only be successful if anonymity is dropped, and someone can't just create a new blank account if eventually booted or rated down (like the trolls do here on slashdot).
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Approach (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose all those papers taught me was that the truth is irrelevant. It's all about presentation. I should have gone into politics.
Re:Good Enough for College (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't care if you're right or wrong in a paper. I care about whether you can prove that you're right or wrong. The two are completely different. If you're wrong but you supply me with your evidence, your chains of reasoning, your sources, then your paper is worth much, much more than someone who is right but cannot document a thing.
Re:So where is the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that schools aren't teaching students how to evaluate sources. If they were, students would learn very quickly not to rely on Yahoo! Answers.
Re:Why does it need to be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Things like "Why is the sky blue?" Answers are like: "Because of reflections from the water"
People often don't even know, or care to tell they don't know, they just guess and pretend like they do... Err... Why? They won't even win prizes, just fictional "points".
It's among the lamest forms of lameness I can imagine wasting time on. At least if I waste time here on Slashdot on discussing topics, I may feel I'm actually helping someone.
Re:Get your answers here! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thomas Crapper craps up Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Fuck Britanicca. Overpriced, high-pressure sales tactics ("buy the encyclopedia and it'll help your kids in school"
I think Britanica is awesome. Sure, Wikipedia can be useful, but at some point, the bad writing just drives me nuts. In, Britannica the articles are generally well written. Paid, professional editors work wonders, and the lack of them is telling in Wikipedia.
Even the previously mentioned Crapper article, is well, crap. Two immediately horrible things jump out. First, a paragraph begins "Yet another purported explanation is that ". It's a choppy sentence that implies the tail end of an enumeration where none exists.
One librarian's view (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes and no, sorta (Score:3, Insightful)
I do simple math all the time, ad usually it would be a real PITA to grab a calculator. You probably simply undervalue the ability to do simple multiplication because you can do t simply and effectively. Though it is perhaps possible that you are special and were in a slow class, which is why it took so long. We did it in 12 weeks, with actual lessons involving critical thinking (basic word problems, dividing cheerios into equal groups and eating them, probably some analog clock stuff (I guess we should stop teaching that too though?). On Monday we would get something to take home and study, it would be every thing up to 12xN where N was that weeks number. On Wednesday we would review it, and Friday a test.
It was constantly re-enforced well throughout high-school and as an adult, by the humiliation in needing a calculator for basic math.