http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giftedness

Interesting that it disparages IQ tests, then refers to them.

It never references Ruf nor Gross anywhere in the article nor does it reference the appalling treatment of the gifted.

The entry is marked as last being updated on 8/20/08. It doesn't appear to be necessarily "wrong" but just not complete or up to date. It mentions that there is work being done on the use of the SB 5 and Weschler 4 "just released" when these tests have been out for some time (as in years). And Dr. Ruf has actually written a guide for the gifted composite score and using the SB5 for assessing giftedness. So, someone just needs to update that.

It also goes to show you that what my dad has always said is perhaps true...."don't believe everything you read. Just because someone wrote it down doesn't mean it's fact."

Those tests are new and I suspect many in the field will wait until they have a much larger number of children completed the tests to norm the IQ numbers to percentile ranks.

It doesn't strongly reference anti-intellectualism, Austin, I agree. But I would consider referring the girls' teachers to this because I think it does a pretty good job overviewing the many complexities that goes along with giftedness.

I would show this to any teacher or family member who thought: Well, that's a GOOD problem to have, what are you worrying about. Or, let them be kids, or they'll be fine, or they have to learn to be bored, that's reality...........

I've heard all of those comments in the last two years!

Can't anybody update wikipedia? Maybe someone here would like to...

Well, they do have editors who "keep an eye on things." Any users who are clearly using Wikipedia to grind axes or to advance goofy, far-out pet theories get stopped...eventually. There are strict requirements for having verifiable, reliable sources for any entry (or a note that one hasn't been provided, and those usually only stand if they're generally accepted as accurate). But it is definitely a situation that requires a good helping of healthy skepticism. Editors aren't infallible.

"Neutral" topics tend to have better entries than politically charged ones, and I certainly agree with you, CFK, that Wikipedia probably should be used as a first stop for info, not generally an ONLY stop.

There's an article by Seth Zenz, a Wikipedia editor and adminstrator and physics grad student, in the current issue of "Symmetry," a free physics magazine published by Fermilab. He argues that Wikipedia does a better job of being accurate and complete than people give it credit for. Granted, he is not a disinterested party, but I think he's right. He also argues that more experts ought to be contributing instead of pooh-poohing it as a resource, because people ARE using Wikipedia and it is NOT going away.

So I'm with Cathy A! Anyone willing to volunteer to update the entry?

LOL! Well, I guess you can't say that particular entry wasn't up-to-date, huh? :p

Kriston, I nominate you !!

IMHO it should reference this site, Ruf, Gross, DYT, and some of the programs around the US??

Oh, not me, please! I hope to be getting my novel back from the freelance editor and revising like mad any day now. I don't need another big project. I'll even be <gasp> posting here less often, if all goes as planned.

Thanks for the nomnation, though.

Anyone else?

hahaha, has anyone here tried to login and change the writeup?
I wish I had time to go in and fix it.