[quote name="rottenbird" date="2020-09-30 14:36:44" ]
also the idea that wikipedia is untrustworthy is antiquated, plus it's a great place for finding sources even if you don't read the articles themselves
[/quote]
Yes, this. I don't get the hate against Wikipedia I see on the internet and IRL. Even my college professors said that it's a good place to find sources.
rottenbird wrote on 2020-09-30 14:36:44:
also the idea that wikipedia is untrustworthy is antiquated, plus it's a great place for finding sources even if you don't read the articles themselves
Yes, this. I don't get the hate against Wikipedia I see on the internet and IRL. Even my college professors said that it's a good place to find sources.
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
Why not both? Spend the money on the site you want to support the most, and whitelist your adblocker for the other. Heck, whitelist both.
[quote name="Hello32123" date="2020-09-30 13:39:03" ]
All my school teachers say to NEVER use wikipedia.
[/quote]
I understand why your teachers say this; it'll help prevent bad research habits from forming. But beyond school it's a bit more complicated than that - Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for learning about something for the first time. It's just not good to base your assignments on it. For an assignment, it's fine to use Wikipedia as a starting point to help understand the basics or get ideas of what topics to choose - but you must then move on to other resources and use those for your assignment. (though lowkey wikipedia's reference lists can help you find [i]some[/i] of those further resources, just make sure you get more from elsewhere or your teachers will see right through it). So I say use Wikipedia if you want; but never [i]end[/i] with Wikipedia. Use it as a springboard to get started and do most your research elsewhere.
Why not both? Spend the money on the site you want to support the most, and whitelist your adblocker for the other. Heck, whitelist both.
Hello32123 wrote on 2020-09-30 13:39:03:
All my school teachers say to NEVER use wikipedia.
I understand why your teachers say this; it'll help prevent bad research habits from forming. But beyond school it's a bit more complicated than that - Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for learning about something for the first time. It's just not good to base your assignments on it. For an assignment, it's fine to use Wikipedia as a starting point to help understand the basics or get ideas of what topics to choose - but you must then move on to other resources and use those for your assignment. (though lowkey wikipedia's reference lists can help you find
some of those further resources, just make sure you get more from elsewhere or your teachers will see right through it). So I say use Wikipedia if you want; but never
end with Wikipedia. Use it as a springboard to get started and do most your research elsewhere.
[quote name="Umbra" date="2020-09-30 16:30:50" ]
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
[/quote]
This
and also since it's technically free to edit, they assume there'll be lots of wrong information
in reality, people monitoring it are like never-sleeping watchers and usually any false or joke edits get corrected decently fast
And it's certainly more up to date than those dusty science books written in 80's in your school library no doubt
Umbra wrote on 2020-09-30 16:30:50:
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
This
and also since it's technically free to edit, they assume there'll be lots of wrong information
in reality, people monitoring it are like never-sleeping watchers and usually any false or joke edits get corrected decently fast
And it's certainly more up to date than those dusty science books written in 80's in your school library no doubt
+ 10 fr time
Any pronouns
I am often a huge idiot
I apologize if I sound rude
not native speaker, english is hard
|
|
wishlist
I like D&D
i'll make this better soon
|
[center][quote name="rottenbird" date="2020-09-30 14:36:44" ]
Hate to be that person, but I would say wikipedia simply because it benefits potentially millions of people.
also the idea that wikipedia is untrustworthy is antiquated, plus it's a great place for finding sources even if you don't read the articles themselves
[/quote]
rottenbird wrote on 2020-09-30 14:36:44:
Hate to be that person, but I would say wikipedia simply because it benefits potentially millions of people.
also the idea that wikipedia is untrustworthy is antiquated, plus it's a great place for finding sources even if you don't read the articles themselves
[quote name="Kryptica" date="2020-09-30 17:07:26" ]
[quote name="Umbra" date="2020-09-30 16:30:50" ]
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
[/quote]
This
and also since it's technically free to edit, they assume there'll be lots of wrong information
in reality, people monitoring it are like never-sleeping watchers and usually any false or joke edits get corrected decently fast
And it's certainly more up to date than those dusty science books written in 80's in your school library no doubt
[/quote]
There's still a fair bit of politicking and bias on Wikipedia articles, so you have to be as aware of that as with any other source. It's more likely to have a problem with thing like sanitising or downplaying criticism/scandals - hard to verify and subjective stuff. When it comes to hard, easy-to-verify objective facts, Wikipedia is leagues ahead of printed material simply by virtue of instant updating. Any printed book tends to be at least a year out of date, which is fine for well-known basic information, but just not good enough at the cutting edge of research.
Kryptica wrote on 2020-09-30 17:07:26:
Umbra wrote on 2020-09-30 16:30:50:
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
This
and also since it's technically free to edit, they assume there'll be lots of wrong information
in reality, people monitoring it are like never-sleeping watchers and usually any false or joke edits get corrected decently fast
And it's certainly more up to date than those dusty science books written in 80's in your school library no doubt
There's still a fair bit of politicking and bias on Wikipedia articles, so you have to be as aware of that as with any other source. It's more likely to have a problem with thing like sanitising or downplaying criticism/scandals - hard to verify and subjective stuff. When it comes to hard, easy-to-verify objective facts, Wikipedia is leagues ahead of printed material simply by virtue of instant updating. Any printed book tends to be at least a year out of date, which is fine for well-known basic information, but just not good enough at the cutting edge of research.
[quote name="Umbra" date="2020-09-30 16:30:50" ]
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
[/quote]
I don’t think this is exactly it.
It’s false that Wikipedia is a bad source and unreliable, which is what a lot of my teachers told me in grade school. It has a lot of great information and so many people are able to add to it. Errors or false information are typically corrected very quickly. However, Wikipedia is a bad source to use if you’re writing a paper.
If I’m writing a scientific paper, I need to find sources that are peer reviewed. I can find a lot about my topic just from the Wikipedia page, but that’s not a good source for a number of reasons. It is possible that the information is false. It’s not common for Wikipedia pages to have false information, but you want to be absolutely sure when you’re writing a paper. It’s not a primary source that includes authors who could be tracked down. Also, the page changes over time when edits are made, so the info you cited might not be on the page forever.
Wikipedia is a great starting point because it sources all of its information. If you find what you need, click on the source it provides and that will help you verify that the information is correct and also give you a good source for your paper. Some teachers are just stubborn, but others want students to find reliable and verified sources and while Wikipedia is a good start and a valuable resource, it’s not the best source to use in a paper.
Umbra wrote on 2020-09-30 16:30:50:
The reason teachers don't like wikipedia is because it makes researching too easy. When they were in school they had to go to the library to find things out, dangnabit.
I don’t think this is exactly it.
It’s false that Wikipedia is a bad source and unreliable, which is what a lot of my teachers told me in grade school. It has a lot of great information and so many people are able to add to it. Errors or false information are typically corrected very quickly. However, Wikipedia is a bad source to use if you’re writing a paper.
If I’m writing a scientific paper, I need to find sources that are peer reviewed. I can find a lot about my topic just from the Wikipedia page, but that’s not a good source for a number of reasons. It is possible that the information is false. It’s not common for Wikipedia pages to have false information, but you want to be absolutely sure when you’re writing a paper. It’s not a primary source that includes authors who could be tracked down. Also, the page changes over time when edits are made, so the info you cited might not be on the page forever.
Wikipedia is a great starting point because it sources all of its information. If you find what you need, click on the source it provides and that will help you verify that the information is correct and also give you a good source for your paper. Some teachers are just stubborn, but others want students to find reliable and verified sources and while Wikipedia is a good start and a valuable resource, it’s not the best source to use in a paper.
|
.
he/him
FR+3:00
|
|
.
|
.
|
_
|
|
I love that this thread turned into a PSA on the merits of Wikipedia and how best to use it to research something for school. Good stuff.
If it helps you make up your mind about where to spend your $5, this post has made me decide to donate to Wikipedia myself. So you don't need to feel guilty if you don't give them a donation personally. [emoji=wildclaw winking size=1]
I love that this thread turned into a PSA on the merits of Wikipedia and how best to use it to research something for school. Good stuff.
If it helps you make up your mind about where to spend your $5, this post has made me decide to donate to Wikipedia myself. So you don't need to feel guilty if you don't give them a donation personally.
[quote name="Quid" date="2020-09-30 16:51:21" ]
Why not both? Spend the money on the site you want to support the most, and whitelist your adblocker for the other. Heck, whitelist both.
[/quote]
@Quid
Wikipedia doesn't run ads, so unfortunately whitelisting won't help them one way or another. That's why they ask for donations.
Quid wrote on 2020-09-30 16:51:21:
Why not both? Spend the money on the site you want to support the most, and whitelist your adblocker for the other. Heck, whitelist both.
@
Quid
Wikipedia doesn't run ads, so unfortunately whitelisting won't help them one way or another. That's why they ask for donations.
