היה או לא היה?
כתבה על המתיחה שהתפרסמה ב-Chonicle of Higher Education (הכתבה המלאה זמינה רק תמורת תשלום, אבל היא נמצאת במלואה במטמון של גוגל), מצטטת את המרצה של הקורס שמסביר:
History classes aren't often as much fun as they could be.... An awful lot of history classes are the passive-learning model, where the professor dispenses and the students consume. It's an efficient model. There's no evidence that it actually results in learning.
רבות מהתגובות בבלוגוספירה החינוכית שהתייחסו למתחיה הזאת היא סלחניות כלפיה, והיו גם בלוגרים שהגיבו בהתלהבות. קתי דייווידסון, למשל, טוענת שהמתיחה חכמה, מהנה, ומעניינת. היא מוספיה:
It doesn't take the Internet to perpetrate a hoax, but it is always a good reminder that we must be careful and cautious and think carefully about the credibility of what we read.
Think of it this way. Suppose there was a community garden in town. A botany professor wanted to teach his students about the dangers of shoddy pest control. So he encouraged his students to plant a crop in the community garden and deliberately infect it with aphids. Sure enough, the other plots in the garden became infected too. Would that be OK?
This project is not about Wikipedia or even the potential fallibility of user-generated content. This project highlights the importance for everyone, even so-called experts, to be constantly vigilant about all information sources. Everyone who encounters information online should be aware that it can be easily created by anyone. ... Information is now validated at the point of consumption, not creation.