Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834

On Jun 4, 11:36 am, Jon Enslin <jens...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:26 am, miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jun 4, 3:46 am, Trent Woodruff <woodru...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:57:34 -0700, miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
My side still hurts from laughing. I really wish I knew who it was who
had sent this to me.
I use wikipedia all the time with medicine stuff, especially pharm.

Sure, but you're an idiot. That speaks for itself.

but my point is that the material on wikipedia on many subjects is
sufficient to answer most boardtype questions with. For example if I
know most of the wikipedia entry for digoxin(a popular heart failure
drug), I'm going to be able to answer most any question about digoxin
that I would need to. Or heck that even a resident would need to know
how to apply.

That's just fine, but how does this jibe with your "Academic types who
bash wikipedia are lame" statement?

Wikipedia is fine for broad, general knowledge about something, but it
is inappropriate to be sourced in a paper or project because it isn't
authoritative. That is all mihos and kardex were saying.

I was going outside the context of their specific complaints(as after
that many posts just dealt with general wikipedia bashing).........I'd
agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia would be
sorta sketchy.

In general though I've noticed that a lot of people in certain fields
who bash wikipedia in many cases don't have the level of
knowledge(without consulting another source) that wikipedia has on a
subject they are bashing,





Jon


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast