|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: I AM SWIM]
#16021234 - 03/30/12 08:36 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
should you ever enter the academic world and attempt to use wiki as a source to back a claim, you probably won't be pleased by the response.
Ive been in the academic world for years. We use wiki all the time, its extremely accurate and useful.
You just casually dismissed a study presented in Nature, a prestigious publication yet you appeal to one case of vandalism alone to support your claim. You have a lot to learn about what is and what isnt suitable substantiation.
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: DieCommie]
#16021264 - 03/30/12 08:43 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
where do they allow you to use wiki as suitable source material?
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: millzy]
#16021311 - 03/30/12 08:51 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
btw, here's what the dumbasses at harvard think about using wikipedia as source material.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
Quote:
Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.
much to learn indeed.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: millzy]
#16021318 - 03/30/12 08:52 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
"They"? We all use it to learn, teach and research. That is what you do in the academic world.
Once my prof was refereeing a paper and turned it down citing that all that information was already on wikipedia.
Whether you like it or not, its very accurate. It is among the best sources out there. Your requirement of "provide factual, verifiable data" is better satisfied by wikipedia than just about anything else. This is evidenced by its growing use and the academic study I cited.
The fact that vandalism actually gets addressed and repaired puts it above any just about any print media you can think of (where inaccuracies stay for good).
I'd still like to hear what, specifically, you think is better than wikipedia. The only thing is the hard core peer reviewed technical journals. And of course, errors abound in even them.
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,476
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 3 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: millzy]
#16021328 - 03/30/12 08:55 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
wikipedia ain't academically valid but it's still an awesome tool.
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: DieCommie]
#16021476 - 03/30/12 09:22 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: "They"? We all use it to learn, teach and research. That is what you do in the academic world.
no, we don't. at least, i don't. i have yet to have one prof encourage the use of wiki, especially citing it for any type of research. like the article i linked above, it might be okay to go and get the general idea about stuff but citing wiki seems to be a gamble.
Quote:
Whether you like it or not, its very accurate.
i'm unbiased against wiki. like i said, i think it's a great website. but the fact remains that it isn't an accurate source for information. in addition to the op's link, the article from harvard's student resource cites another incident (quoted within my last reply) of a spurious entry that has yet to be corrected. that's two examples of wiki being wrong against your one study now.
Quote:
I'd still like to hear what, specifically, you think is better than wikipedia. The only thing is the hard core peer reviewed technical journals. And of course, errors abound in even them.
i'll repeat myself and say that sources depend on the subject. i agree that none of them are completely immune to error, but wiki's nature lends itself to being more so prone to inaccuracies.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: millzy]
#16021553 - 03/30/12 09:35 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
millzy said: but the fact remains that it isn't an accurate source for information.
The Nature article says otherwise.
Quote:
in addition to the op's link, the article from harvard's student resource cites another incident (quoted within my last reply) of a spurious entry that has yet to be corrected. that's two examples of wiki being wrong against your one study now.
The plural of anecdote is not evidence. The study I presented sampled many articles and compiled a whole list of errors. Even with respect to these errors it found that Wikipedia is exceedingly accurate.
Quote:
millzy said:
Quote:
I'd still like to hear what, specifically, you think is better than wikipedia. The only thing is the hard core peer reviewed technical journals. And of course, errors abound in even them.
i'll repeat myself and say that sources depend on the subject. i agree that none of them are completely immune to error, but wiki's nature lends itself to being more so prone to inaccuracies.
So... None then.
Edited by DieCommie (03/30/12 09:40 PM)
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: DieCommie]
#16021581 - 03/30/12 09:40 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
millzy said:
Quote:
I'd still like to hear what, specifically, you think is better than wikipedia. The only thing is the hard core peer reviewed technical journals. And of course, errors abound in even them.
i'll repeat myself and say that sources depend on the subject. i agree that none of them are completely immune to error, but wiki's nature lends itself to being more so prone to inaccuracies.
So... None then.
saying that the source depends on the subject is hardly offering none. oh wait, you use wiki so you probably think there's one source for everything. my bad.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
Larrythescaryrex
teardrop on the fire
Registered: 07/19/00
Posts: 11,004
Loc: further down the spiral
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: millzy]
#16021615 - 03/30/12 09:45 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
all you need to know about george washington.
-------------------- RIP Acidic_Sloth Sunset_Mission said: "larry the scary rex verily scary when thoroughly vexed invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex mercifully massacring memories masterfully relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs" April 24th 2011
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: Larrythescaryrex]
#16021686 - 03/30/12 09:59 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
@ diecommie, if you want a specific example of using good sources i had to write a paper for political philosophy last week regarding plato's republic. i was only allowed to use the text to back up my claims. and by only the text i mean only the text, not even the preface - often translations have great prefaces that help set them up for the reader. in this case i had to contextually back my argument with quotes from the text.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: millzy]
#16021710 - 03/30/12 10:04 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
So, you had to write a book report and thus could only use the book you were reporting on. That doesn't seem relevant to me. I dont think book reports count. I allow my students to cite Wikipedia in the reports I grade and when I was an undergrad I was allowed to as well.
http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/
The times they are a changin' and the old people need to get out of the way.
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: DieCommie]
#16021717 - 03/30/12 10:05 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
it wasn't a book report. i had to present an argument using quotes from the text to back it up.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
realfuzzhead
Registered: 03/03/10
Posts: 10,783
Loc: above the smog layer
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: mellowparty]
#16021827 - 03/30/12 10:34 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mellowparty said: I think I'm gonna vandalize wiki now, I'll try to make it really subtle tho with a strong shroomery undertone.
Quote:
Psilocin agonises a subset of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors in the suprachiasmatic nucleus and anterior commissure where it sends a proliferative signal via PLC-calmodulin and MAPK cascade and morphometric differences in these regions have been correlated to sexual preference and homosexuality in men (Swaab and Hofman, 1990; Allen and Gorski, 1992). In addition the exogenously altered proliferative capacity of these brain areas has direct implications for the non-autonomous upregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary system activity that is translated in increased levels of aromatase in Leydig cells and consequently higher oestradiol plasma levels (Collins et al., 1996). The net output of these psilocin triggered events is feminisation of the CNS and diametrical shift in sexual preference in otherwise healthy young male individuals (Gordon et al., 2000)
you're the best mellowparty
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: millzy]
#16021842 - 03/30/12 10:38 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
What does that have to do with the validity of wikipedia? Your professor made you use only one book as a source, so wikipedia is invalid? I dont see what you are getting at here. I had to do reports on books as well. Obviously those reports required that I use the book. Still, wikipedia is extremely accurate.
If in doing research you dont even consult wikipedia at all then you are ignoring a fountain of information to you own detriment. If you do use wikipedia and dont cite it you are being academically dishonest. But this only applies to reports for students of course. Publications and thesis are so technical and narrow that there would be little use to cite wikipedia even if you could.
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
|
Re: LOL@ wikipedia article about george washington [Re: DieCommie]
#16021919 - 03/30/12 10:58 PM (12 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: What does that have to do with the validity of wikipedia? Your professor made you use only one book as a source, so wikipedia is invalid? I dont see what you are getting at here. I had to do reports on books as well. Obviously those reports required that I use the book. Still, wikipedia is extremely accurate.
If in doing research you dont even consult wikipedia at all then you are ignoring a fountain of information to you own detriment. If you do use wikipedia and dont cite it you are being academically dishonest. But this only applies to reports for students of course. Publications and thesis are so technical and narrow that there would be little use to cite wikipedia even if you could.
well again, i said that the subject determines which sources are the best. but in all fairness you asked for a specific example of a specific source for academic work and i provided one. and again, it's not a book report. you don't write book reports for philosophy; you formulate and defend positions that are backed by whatever texts you are working with. it's more like defending a legal case than anything. in the case of my paper i had to defend an argument using the republic and only the republic, thus making that a source for my work.
perhaps wiki is acceptable to use with whatever you're doing, but in my experience it isn't. i'll gladly concede if that's the case. i'm not trying to be a dick but this wiki business is news to me.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
|