Reading can be part of learning, but just reading Wikipedia is not. If you want to learn something, you need to invest the time in it to understand not just the words, but the context of that information, you need to be able to apply what you have read, and make use of it, even if that use is purely academic.
For instance, you can read about the American civil war on Wikipedia, but a history teacher would not say that you learned the history of the American civil war. You would need to read multiple books on the situation before the war, during the war, and after the war, along with exploring the relevant technologies available at the time. You’d also want to look into primary sources like the diaries of some of the major leadership on both sides of the conflict, and review maps of battle sites and troop movements with time and dates, maybe even go visit some of the major battle sites, and at that point, you could say you’ve learned the history of the American civil war.
Same thing for space. You can read the Wikipedia article on space, but you can’t claim that you learned about space from that. You’d need to look at other sources, rely on previous education you’ve had in school, maybe make some observations of space on your own, watch interviews of astronauts and astronomers, and then you can start to say that you’re learning about space.
Learning takes an investment from you. Simply reading the material is not learning, you need to interact with it.
Sorry, your reasoning sounds ridiculously arbitrary and elitist. Yes, reading a single wiki page won’t give the same depth of knowledge as studying the topic for years, but it’s still increased knowledge compared to what the reader had before. By your reasoning nobody learns anything before they go to university? Because in what other educational environment you would read multiple books’ worth of information about a single subject…
Reading can be part of learning, but just reading Wikipedia is not. If you want to learn something, you need to invest the time in it to understand not just the words, but the context of that information, you need to be able to apply what you have read, and make use of it, even if that use is purely academic.
For instance, you can read about the American civil war on Wikipedia, but a history teacher would not say that you learned the history of the American civil war. You would need to read multiple books on the situation before the war, during the war, and after the war, along with exploring the relevant technologies available at the time. You’d also want to look into primary sources like the diaries of some of the major leadership on both sides of the conflict, and review maps of battle sites and troop movements with time and dates, maybe even go visit some of the major battle sites, and at that point, you could say you’ve learned the history of the American civil war.
Same thing for space. You can read the Wikipedia article on space, but you can’t claim that you learned about space from that. You’d need to look at other sources, rely on previous education you’ve had in school, maybe make some observations of space on your own, watch interviews of astronauts and astronomers, and then you can start to say that you’re learning about space.
Learning takes an investment from you. Simply reading the material is not learning, you need to interact with it.
Sorry, your reasoning sounds ridiculously arbitrary and elitist. Yes, reading a single wiki page won’t give the same depth of knowledge as studying the topic for years, but it’s still increased knowledge compared to what the reader had before. By your reasoning nobody learns anything before they go to university? Because in what other educational environment you would read multiple books’ worth of information about a single subject…
Absolutely not what I said. Please re-read my comment.
Yeah… You definitely did not understand what I wrote. Read it again and see if you still feel the same way.