Re: The wonderful world of students, part 482834

On Jun 6, 6:59 pm, rich hammett <bubbaric...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Jun 6, 1:26 am, rich hammett <bubbaric...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jun 4, 8:38 pm, rich hammett <bubbaric...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jun 4, 7:22 pm, "TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknicke...@xxxxxx> wrote:
<miander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1180994961.633095.43440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

I highly doubt that is the reason.
Im not saying they're pissed because a colleague who also does
research on their little obscure area would consider going to
wikipedia to read about something in that field. They're pissed
because all the people who don't need some complex understanding of it
can just go to another source to get the appropriate info without even
doing a general check of the literature.
One of the problems with researcher types is that they believe(for
whatever reason) that everyone cares about their little pet area of
research. We don't.

Amazing. Especially for a medical student.
why is it amazing? Are you under the impression that most medical
students are interested in genome mapping of the virulence factors for
campylobacter or something like that? Because if so, you're very
mistaken.

I suspect that, if you were a history major, you would whine about
any class where they talked about history of a place or a type of
person that was outside of your area of concentration.

I suspect that you are lying in what you say about lectures.

I suspect that half of your lying is saying that non-clinician
lecturers rarely spoke of issues at all relevant to clinical
practice.
why would they? they aren't clinicians, so why would they be speaking
heavily about clinical correlations? and note that that's not why I
complained- it's when they go on tangents that aren't board-relevant
in addition to not being clinically relevant. Sometimes clinicians
would give lectures that weren't high yield for boards but they had
clinical content that could be applied in clinical rotations.

I suspect you're using a different definition of clinically relevant
than I am.

I suspect he other half of your lying is in your
inability to understand why a clinician should know something
about how the biology of the body actually works
you're not listening to what Im saying then.....because Im not saying
then. I understand(for obvious reasons) why a clinician must know
physiology for example.

Why should a urologist know the physiology of the rest of the body?


because any surgeon should be familar with basic hemodynamic and
respiratory physiology for example........that seems like common
sense.

The point is that I don't go around telling you what your doctoral
program in neuroscience or engineering or whatever it is you are
studying is like, so why should you do the same with me? I've never
been enrolled in a neuroscience/engineering graduate program and
you've never been enrolled in medical school......so I'll stick to
commenting about what my cirriculum is like(and not yours) and you'd
be better of sticking to what your program of study is like(and not
mine).


.

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 ... 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
    ... agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia ... Im not saying they're pissed because a colleague who also does ... 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 ... 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
    ... agree that in a formal research paper *citing* wikipedia ... Im not saying they're pissed because a colleague who also does ... they aren't clinicians, so why would they be speaking ... making psychiatry into a branch of neuroscience. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)