Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834

On Jun 4, 6:02 pm, "TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknicke...@xxxxxx> wrote:
<miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1180992833.076375.318390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Jun 4, 5:25 pm, Trent Woodruff <woodru...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:46:55 -0700, miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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,

It also has had information about Jon Kerrey's homosexual love affair
and that Michael Jordan played soccer in between his basketball and
baseball careers.

and how long did it take to get that changed back?

for certain current events or controversial figures, that kind of
stuff happens occasionally. But those type of instances are
relatively minor snags compared to the usefulness of wikipedia.

Wikipedia is very useful for information but it cannot be an academic source
for the exact occurence above, ie. it is too dynamic. One must always be
able to go and look up an academic source and that source cannot change from
the state it was in when it was cited. Since Wikipedia can be not only
updated, but also manipulated, it just can't be useful as a true academic
cite.

That's the point of all this.

A lot of the anti-wikipedia snobbery isn't for that reason though. I
think many academic types are just pissed that sources like wikipedia
mean even more people won't be reading all the articles they co-
authored that have never been read outside of the people who reviewed
them for submission.



T- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834
    ... That is all mihos and kardex were saying. ... agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia would be ... Wikipedia is very useful for information but it cannot be an academic source ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834
    ... That is all mihos and kardex were saying. ... agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia would be ... I suspect that you are lying in what you say about lectures. ... they aren't clinicians, so why would they be speaking ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834
    ... That is all mihos and kardex were saying. ... agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia would be ... Sometimes clinicians ... I suspect you're using a different definition of clinically relevant ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834
    ... That is all mihos and kardex were saying. ... agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia would be ... they aren't clinicians, so why would they be speaking ... Why should a urologist know the physiology of the rest of the body? ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834
    ... That is all mihos and kardex were saying. ... agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia would be ... they aren't clinicians, so why would they be speaking ... Why should a urologist know the physiology of the rest of the body? ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)