I agree with jerv, since there is no way to prove the veracity of the facts, I would not want to absorb everything in wikipedia. Now if you had said Encyclopedia Britannica, I would say yes in a heart beat.
Hmmm…with al that info, all those citations, all those links, my brain would be pretty crowded. Would I be able to tell wheather or not the info was accurate? Or would I always be saying to people, “I read this somewhere, and I don’t know if it’s true, but for what it’s worth…”
I was about to utter an unqualified yes, because, hell, you never really know how much of what you remember learning is true, or if you indeed ,remember it correctly. After all, if you aren’t sure if it’s true, you could always dig deeper and find out. To have the recall of all that info would be incredibly liberating. Think of all the connections you could make and all the inspiration you could have!
The point that rpm pseud0name makes is a good one though. It sort of puts a stop to that sense of discovery. And to me, that sense of discovery is intoxicating! It’s a hard call. I’ll get back to you.
You know, sure there’s a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia. But does anyone think it is more than the misinformation we already have in our heads? I’m betting it would be a far superior situation to have all of Wiki’s knowledge and sometimes be wrong rather than be wrong as often as we all already are.
If I could do that, then I assume that I could also absorb knowledge that was stored/shared/presented/documented from other sources and people. I’d greatly consider my options before turning to Wiki’s.
I wouldn’t want my brain filled with all that. It’s not information and facts that is so important to me. It’s understanding how things work. I don’t really need a lot of information if I can predict how things will come out based on the models that exist in my mind of how things work.
I think if I had all of wikipedia in there, I could hardly think. Thinking is more important than facts.
@bkcunningham not according to my GFs college instructors. Her term paper must have 2 sources for information, neither of which can be Wiki. If she chooses to use wikipedia as a source she must have 4 other independant sources that confirm the data.
No, Wikipedia can be altered by anyone in this world at any time. I find it a waste of brain space to be retaining information that is inaccurate or completely made up. I do find Wikipedia to be a good source at times,when you need a quick recap of something but that’s really all it’s good for.
I will alter the question to suppose that the information in Wikipedia is accurate. How would the information be stored? We don’t store information like computers. Our brains are not just fact warehouses. There are pathways from one memory to the next. We have emotional reactions to much of it. The constructivist theory of learning says that we actively build knowledge based on experience and prior knowledge. In other words, you can’t just stuff information into the brain.
Somehow my post got truncated. What I wanted to point out is that we do not store information the same way that computers do. Even if we assume that Wikipedia is completely accurate, how would the information be placed in our brains? There is a theory of learning called constructivism, which makes a lot of sense to me. It says that we take an active role in learning, that we establish connections between various pieces of knowledge and sometimes develop an emotional response to them. I can picture having a chip in our heads that contains the Wikipedia and which we could access similarly to how we currently access Wikipedia, but that is not the same thing as truly assimilating all that information.