Though I promote the teaching of other forms of research too, because it’s good to know and to use to collaborate your sources, Wikipedia gets a bit of an unfairly bad rap from traditionalists, and I’ve actually found it to be a very reliable source more often than not, much more accurate than some people claim it to be.
In reality, we ought to be embracing Wikipedia (or things like it) as the future anyway. Furthermore, if you don’t trust its material for whatever reason, then you can go and do your part to insure that it is; that’s kind of the point behind Wikipedia, y’know?
(Sorry if this is a little ranty, but this is a subject I’m a bit passionate about)
I have tried both recently. Libraries aren’t being funded correctly and have bought no new books or research journal subscriptions in years. On line resources are behind expensive firewalls. Keepers of books of standards and laws fund themselves by being the single publisher. Academic subscription services usually only bring up highlight synopses. Journalism sources styles are all reading like the ads at the top of this column. Truthyness reigns because facts are being hoarded.
The university dept I worked for had a grad student who was dismissed for plagiarism, word for word, from Wikipedia without attribution back in its early days, I want to say 2002 or 3. He was caught largely because the use of jargon demonstrated a superior knowledge than typical first-years. There were also a few tossed out for plagiarizing research papers, like the faculty haven’t read every research paper published on the subject at hand for the last 20 years.
krys723 about 10 years ago
I remember the days when my teacher said that you can use anything but the internet…nowadays kids are just lazy
Kyle Robert about 10 years ago
Some kids are lazy now, sure, but there have always been lazy kids (and adults, for that matter). They just have better tools now.
PICTO about 10 years ago
“Efficiency is the highest form of laziness.”
Homeward Premium Member about 10 years ago
Wikipedia, only one e.
scyphi26 about 10 years ago
Though I promote the teaching of other forms of research too, because it’s good to know and to use to collaborate your sources, Wikipedia gets a bit of an unfairly bad rap from traditionalists, and I’ve actually found it to be a very reliable source more often than not, much more accurate than some people claim it to be.
In reality, we ought to be embracing Wikipedia (or things like it) as the future anyway. Furthermore, if you don’t trust its material for whatever reason, then you can go and do your part to insure that it is; that’s kind of the point behind Wikipedia, y’know?
(Sorry if this is a little ranty, but this is a subject I’m a bit passionate about)
PoodleGroomer about 10 years ago
I have tried both recently. Libraries aren’t being funded correctly and have bought no new books or research journal subscriptions in years. On line resources are behind expensive firewalls. Keepers of books of standards and laws fund themselves by being the single publisher. Academic subscription services usually only bring up highlight synopses. Journalism sources styles are all reading like the ads at the top of this column. Truthyness reigns because facts are being hoarded.
Scorchwave about 10 years ago
Is that how they spell Wikipedia, too?
heatherjasper about 10 years ago
Wikipedia is about the only website my teachers won’t let us use for research.
Boots at the Boar Premium Member about 10 years ago
The university dept I worked for had a grad student who was dismissed for plagiarism, word for word, from Wikipedia without attribution back in its early days, I want to say 2002 or 3. He was caught largely because the use of jargon demonstrated a superior knowledge than typical first-years. There were also a few tossed out for plagiarizing research papers, like the faculty haven’t read every research paper published on the subject at hand for the last 20 years.