Wikipedia

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by King

You should go there now!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

But I know everything already. :-)

[Cloud]

Well, I have a very curious mind.

To the OP: you posted this without a comment, so I'm not sure what you think about this.

[DanaC]

Cloud, i wasn't being contradictory. I initially expressed the view that it was fair enough that the university no longer accepted wiki as a citable source.....then in response to Flint's post, I asked in what way teaching students to do non web based research was equivalent to teaching chefs to light a fire with sticks?

You then posted about how learning to research 'the old fashioned way' was useful. I agreed with you. I see no problem with students not being allowed to cite wikipedia as an academic source in an academic paper.

Using it as a start point or revision tool is fine, but any student with serious academic intentions needs to be able to conduct research using traditional methods (including web based sources which have been subject to proper academic peer review, such as electronic journal holdings like jstor).

At no point in this thread have I suggested that students don't need to conduct 'proper' research. As a student of history and aspiring academic I am more than familiar with traditional research methods, and frankly if I or my fellow students were to cite wikepedia as a source we'd be pretty much laughed off campus.

[Cloud]

okie dokie, thanks for clarifying that.

[Aliantha]

As a recent university student, I can say there's no way I'd even consider citing wiki as a source. The reason for that is that the articles on that site don't distinguish whether they're actually published articles or not, therefore, if they have not been published, they are not a reputable source. They have not been peer reviewed and often contain slanted or flat out untrue statements.

I don't think anyone should use wiki as a reference cited on a paper, however, as has been mentioned, it's sometimes a good place to look for information in order to start to formulate an argument.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

They have not been peer reviewed and often contain slanted or flat out untrue statements.

I thought the point of Wikipedia is that all articles are peer reviewed. By everyone. Nearly everyday.

It's prof's discretion where I'm going to class and most allow it to be used once. Nothing wrong with using it to read through the original sources, either, since they're cited.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I thought the point of Wikipedia is that all articles are peer reviewed. By everyone. Nearly everyday.

Originally Posted by Flint

In this article: deliberate (and subtle) deceptions were corrected within three hours.

"The fibs that professor Alexander Halavais slipped in were deviously subtle: that abolitionist Frederick Douglass, lived in Syracuse, N.Y. for four years, and that the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under won an Oscar for film editing. Both are false, but would you have doubted these "factoids"?

Halavais hypothesized that the obscure errors would "languish online for some time," the Chronicle reported. Instead the Wikipedia volunteers eliminated all the fabrications within three hours of being posted."

If I was still teaching I would not allow it in my class and do not use it on-line to make a point.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

...and do not use it on-line to make a point.

Hey that's a great point. I mean, the way you talked about making it...brilliant. What was it by the way?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

If I was still teaching I would not allow it in my class and do not use it on-line to make a point.

You don't use it online to make a point, or you don't use it when making a point online?

[Cloud]

I think Wikipedia is a wonderful general-purpose informational resource, and there's nothing wrong in students accessing it for background research. Just to say "you can't use it" is biting the nose to spite the face. Students need to understand the steps in research, understand the purpose behind background research, the difference between primary and secondary sources, and what makes sources authoritative.

Sure, use it as a stepping-off point, but they would not be able to use it as a source for their papers.

Originally Posted by Flint

Hey that's a great point. I mean, the way you talked about making it...brilliant. What was it by the way?

WTF?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

...and do not use it on-line to make a point.

Originally Posted by Flint

Hey that's a great point. I mean, the way you talked about making it...brilliant. What was it by the way?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

WTF?

Well...you said you "do not use it" to "make a point" . . . what was the point? I don't know what the point is, so you haven't made it. You haven't explained what the point is. Furthermore, nobody is keeping track of whether you, one individual man, is using or not using Wiki - so simply not using it doesn't "make" a point. If your not-using-it were to catch the attention of interested parties, they wouldn't have any way to know what your reasons were, so no "point" would be made in that case. The only possible way you could be making a "point" is by posting, here, about not using Wiki. But that, too, fails to "make a point" because you have neglected to tell us what the "point" is. So: what was the point?

For the record, I'm interested in what your point consists of, so please make one.

Originally Posted by Flint

Well...you said you "do not use it" to "make a point" . . . what was the point? I don't know what the point is, so you haven't made it. You haven't explained what the point is. Furthermore, nobody is keeping track of whether you, one individual man, is using or not using Wiki - so simply not using it doesn't "make" a point. If your not-using-it were to catch the attention of interested parties, they wouldn't have any way to know what your reasons were, so no "point" would be made in that case. The only possible way you could be making a "point" is by posting, here, about not using Wiki. But that, too, fails to "make a point" because you have neglected to tell us what the "point" is. So: what was the point?

For the record, I'm interested in what your point consists of, so please make one.

I hope you are making sense to yourself, I really do. I know you think this is some kind of argument and insult, it is not, it is just sad.

[Flint]

I only did it to make a point.