As a student in her last course before I complete a Master's it drives me NUTS!!!

Do you know how fast I would fail anything if I used Wikipedia as a scholarly or reputable source?

During your little sqaubbles and facting tirades, please use another source!


STOP IT!!!! JUST STOP IT!! You are intelligent people, QUIT!!!

Overly excited, and cannot spell moment edit
[Edited 9/2/08 20:03pm]

it's a good starting point if they have a well-stocked bibliography with workable URLs.

Eh, if P&R presented anything approaching scholarly discussion, I may be tempted to break open the EBSCO databases for refereed articles, government reports and the like. (And occasionally I do so for kicks.) As it were, for armchair sociopolitical sparring on a website dedicated to a passé R&B musician, I think Wikipedia suffices for cursory, if dumbed down, background.
[Edited 9/2/08 20:19pm]

Lammastide said:

Not the Ebsco!


Seriously...we would get an F for using Wiki. I'd rather use Yahoo Answers.

KatSkrizzle said:

Thank you. I hate Wiki quoted as a source. none of my professors accept it.

Stymie said:

i agree it would make for a lazy source for course work. but for an org debate, screw it.
[Edited 9/2/08 21:10pm]

Anxiety said:

Even for org debates.

Wikipedia can be a good source, it just depends on what you're looking for.

If you're looking for stuff having to do with video-games, comics or D&D, it's usually pretty good. That's what I use it for mainly.


If you're looking for stuff that deals with real life...it's not so great.

KatSkrizzle said:

Uhhhhmmmmm
Considered and NO
It's convenient and reasonably accurate.
I am not pursuing a masters degree in the org.
What's a better source?

Stymie said:

i'm not getting paid enough for this gig.

So you use the org for school work?

luv4u said:

yes. it was very successful in helping me avoid it as long as humanly possible.

I guess being an educated and kind of snooty with folks resources opened folks to tease me and say I use the org for education...

Actually....it could.

Sociology and Psychology and the impact it has on our use of the Internet.

Luv4U, you are a smart arse!

i think using wikipedia as an initial resourse is fine, but depending on it as a sole resource is dangerous and lazy. i'm all for anything that will get you from point a to point b, or whatever dots need to be connected in the journey to find something out. just make sure when you get that info that it's accurate, whether it's from wikipedia or the front page of your local newspaper. can't trust those people either, you know.

I guees wee all have our quirks.

I just don't like Wikipedia, because anyone can make up something.

But it is an ok stating point. It DOES lead to other websites n stuff

KatSkrizzle said:

that's my point. i'll read the wiki entries, but i know better than to trust them as the gospel truth. usually the kind of stuff i look up is trivial and it's a case of "why would anyone bother to make this stuff up?", but if i really want to know something important, i go to the bibliography links or else i just stick with the google search.

Anxiety said:

I agree!

i love wikipedia.

if it's not on wikipedia, then it probably doesn't exist.

They are supposed to be professionals...

Anxiety said:

I don't like being shouted at or worse being given orders, but I think he/she has a point. And I'm glad somebody is finally saying this.

KatSkrizzle said:

luv4u said:

It has seemed like it for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the encyclopedia. For the different, similar terms related to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia (terminology).
For Wikipedia's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see Wikipedia:About.
Wikipedia

Wikipedia (pronunciation ) is a free,[5] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the United States-based non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[6] it attempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language.[7]

As of April 2008, Wikipedia had over 10 million articles in 253 languages, about a quarter of which are in English.[2] Wikipedia's articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and nearly all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Wikipedia website.[8] Having steadily risen in popularity since its inception,[1] it is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.[9][10][11]

Critics of Wikipedia target its systemic bias and inconsistencies[12] and its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[13] Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy are also an issue.[14] Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information.[15] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[16][17]

In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated.[18][19] When Time magazine recognized "You" as its Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular "Web 2.0" service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace

Anxiety said:

Wiki gets a bad rap. It's not the end-all, be-all of information obviously, but it can be a good place to start.