|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Oct 7, 2011 14:19:33 GMT -5
Well duh. The government's never going to tell you about how Cylon forces assisted George Washington against Napoleon at the Battle of Tiananmen Square, which began as retaliation for Napoleon's conquest of Alexander the Great. Can you imagine what would happen if the truth got out? Civilization 4 or 5 much? *raises an eyebrow*
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Oct 7, 2011 16:01:26 GMT -5
That's exactly what my teacher tells us to do. She doesn't mind if we go to Wikipedia to get a brief "overview" of a topic and she also lets us use it to find sources. In fact, she insists that we check Wikipedia first before checking any other database or search engine. But have you actually read the original source material? Zie just said "she lets us use it to find sources." That implies that the students are, in fact, using the sources linked to at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 7, 2011 20:37:19 GMT -5
Again, your average high school teacher won't let you use it at all, even if it's an assignment that requires 5+ sources ANYWAY. Basically, what I am against is this baseline irrational Wikipedia is Bad knee jerk reaction. I don't advocate using it for scientific research or only using it. Luckily, there's a way around it. Go to Wikipedia and then go directly to the sources and cite those without ever mentioning Wikipedia. If you're at home, sure. I've had more than one teacher who was such a monumental pain in the ass that I couldn't even be on the site if I was working on the assignment in-class. I also don't completely like that method because it's counter-productive in the same sense that it would be a little absurd to cite each contributor to a textbook, rather than the textbook itself. The other place it's problematic is on the internet. You ever run across one of those yagoffs who discounts everything you say because you cite Wikipedia at some point, even if they have nothing? I have.
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Oct 7, 2011 20:50:25 GMT -5
Both professors that I have had for English Composition were really against using Wikipedia as a source.
I personally think that Wikipedia should be used as a springboard to finding sources because sometimes Google results don't give you accurate or unbiased results. For example if I were doing research on 9/11 and wanted to discuss the structural failure of the Twin Towers, I type in something like "Twin Tower structural failure" or "9/11 cause of collapse" or something along those veins, I would get hit up with conspiracy theory websites.
Similarily if I wanted to do something on symbolism in art, in history and modern art, I might get hit up with Google results from conspiracy theory/religious sites about so called "satanic symbols" or something.
ETA: Also Youtube is increasingly not being allowed as a source either, usually for those doing power point presentations.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 7, 2011 21:17:06 GMT -5
So what do you do if you want to include a video?
At least if you want to lift the ideas, you can cite the author in another fashion.
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 8, 2011 2:27:58 GMT -5
I found that I was still going after encyclopedias and other books back in college (and even now, a decade later), when Wiki and Google aren't quite enough. I showed an interest in soldering and electrical engineering, my roomie dropped me on Wiki for two days, then took me to Barnes & Noble for an actual book on electrical work so I can do things around the house.
Wiki's nice, but it's not the be-all, end-all.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 8, 2011 9:33:38 GMT -5
But have you actually read the original source material? Zie just said "she lets us use it to find sources." That implies that the students are, in fact, using the sources linked to at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. What, even the sources that only have an ISBN on them? Or the ones that belong to out of print books? Didn't think so.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Oct 8, 2011 15:04:32 GMT -5
Luckily, there's a way around it. Go to Wikipedia and then go directly to the sources and cite those without ever mentioning Wikipedia. If you're at home, sure. I've had more than one teacher who was such a monumental pain in the ass that I couldn't even be on the site if I was working on the assignment in-class. I also don't completely like that method because it's counter-productive in the same sense that it would be a little absurd to cite each contributor to a textbook, rather than the textbook itself. The other place it's problematic is on the internet. You ever run across one of those yagoffs who discounts everything you say because you cite Wikipedia at some point, even if they have nothing? I have. That's the point. Wikipedia is not supposed to be your source--there's that whole pesky thing about anyone, even morons, trolls, and Tea Party revisionists, being able to edit it. You're supposed to go to the links at the bottom, read those, and use them as your source. That is the method we're talking about here. And scotsgit, just because some of the sources at the bottom of a page are unusable, doesn't mean they all are. Nor does someone have to use EVERY link from the bottom of the page.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 8, 2011 16:52:15 GMT -5
Have you been listening to a word I said? All great in theory, but in practice, that just doesn't happen. If it does, that is quickly overturned.
Sure, you hear stories of bad cases of vandalism, but isn't it funny how these are never documented, even though most of them were pre-planned by the person, or a friend of the person?
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 8, 2011 19:05:15 GMT -5
If you're at home, sure. I've had more than one teacher who was such a monumental pain in the ass that I couldn't even be on the site if I was working on the assignment in-class. I also don't completely like that method because it's counter-productive in the same sense that it would be a little absurd to cite each contributor to a textbook, rather than the textbook itself. The other place it's problematic is on the internet. You ever run across one of those yagoffs who discounts everything you say because you cite Wikipedia at some point, even if they have nothing? I have. That's the point. Wikipedia is not supposed to be your source--there's that whole pesky thing about anyone, even morons, trolls, and Tea Party revisionists, being able to edit it. You're supposed to go to the links at the bottom, read those, and use them as your source. That is the method we're talking about here. And scotsgit, just because some of the sources at the bottom of a page are unusable, doesn't mean they all are. Nor does someone have to use EVERY link from the bottom of the page. On average, in an essay, how many sources would you be using then?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 8, 2011 19:18:13 GMT -5
I know that question wasn't aimed at me, but I usually go for 3.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Oct 9, 2011 16:14:56 GMT -5
Have you been listening to a word I said? All great in theory, but in practice, that just doesn't happen. If it does, that is quickly overturned. Sure, you hear stories of bad cases of vandalism, but isn't it funny how these are never documented, even though most of them were pre-planned by the person, or a friend of the person? What about how Michelle Bachmann's supporters changed Wikipedia pages about the Founding Fathers to fit the pseudohistory from her speeches? That didn't get changed back. scotsgit: 3-5, usually. Most pages tend to have more sources than that.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 9, 2011 17:01:28 GMT -5
I think that Al Queada is the only terrorist group ever that actually have to prove that they did an act of terror.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 9, 2011 18:15:19 GMT -5
I know that question wasn't aimed at me, but I usually go for 3. Seriously? Mine have an average of 8 or 9, anything less and the tutor would laugh me out of the room.
|
|
|
Post by Sleepy on Oct 9, 2011 18:25:14 GMT -5
You can't really give an accurate average for number of sources, considering how much it varies based on the essay's topic and length.
|
|