August 24, 200620 yr http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-11524_7-65590...l?tag=cnetfd.sd Facebook Flickr Audio Lunchbox College Humor FinAid AddictingGames Google CSTV PokerStars Idealist.org The Freshman 15 11. Rate My Professor 12. Wikipedia 13. Yelp 14. Craigslist 15. BartleBy
August 26, 200620 yr Professors will fail your paper if you cite Wikipedia as a source really? I won't test that.
August 26, 200620 yr Professors will fail your paper if you cite Wikipedia as a source Depends on the individual and or school policy. Isn't very reliable though, since it is written by random people often with little to no credibility. Look up "blumpkin" on there, one of the more humorous things on Wiki IMO.
August 27, 200620 yr Professors will fail your paper if you cite Wikipedia as a source And for good reason. Wikipedia is like the Bible: It's a nice guide, but it should never be quoted for accuracy. -----o----- A site that could be included as well is www.mynoteit.com. It's a socializing site sorta, but it's mostly to post notes and doing other class related stuff. I signed up but obviously haven't tested it since I haven't started school yet.
August 27, 200620 yr Professors will fail your paper if you cite Wikipedia as a source Wikipedia is like the Bible: It's a nice guide, but it should never be quoted for accuracy.Ridiculous analogy.
August 27, 200620 yr Professors will fail your paper if you cite Wikipedia as a source Wikipedia is like the Bible: It's a nice guide, but it should never be quoted for accuracy.Ridiculous analogy. true. and you actually could get away with using wikipedia, its all about the number of sources and what you are using wikipedia for. to make a blanket statement about virtually anything is unwise. i agree, i would fail any student who used only wikipedia for their source, then again i would fail any student for only using one source for their information.
August 27, 200620 yr Alot of Wikipedia's information actually comes from documented sources so it is a good gateway for information if you look under a page's Notes and References section.
August 27, 200620 yr Alot of Wikipedia's information actually comes from documented sources so it is a good gateway for information if you look under a page's Notes and References section. especially when you factor in that it has been documented that wikipedia has been proven to be just as reliable as any regular encylopedia as well.
August 27, 200620 yr tuckermax.com my personal jesus depeche mode want royalties for your post. :mischief
August 27, 200620 yr Alot of Wikipedia's information actually comes from documented sources so it is a good gateway for information if you look under a page's Notes and References section. especially when you factor in that it has been documented that wikipedia has been proven to be just as reliable as any regular encylopedia as well. The size of the studies on Wikipedia's accuracy (compared to other encyclopedias) that I have seen have been way too small for me to consider any of them credible. For instance, in this article on a study by Nature they write: "However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature ? the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science ? suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule. The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three." We are talking about an encyclopedia with 1.3+ million entries (in English). I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that by testing 42 entries out of over one million that there is little difference between the Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
August 27, 200620 yr I've had teachers on both sides on Wikipedia - one even assigned a reading from it. While most of it is fairly accurate, I never use it in a project or paper without cross-referencing with other sources.
August 28, 200620 yr Professors will fail your paper if you cite Wikipedia as a source Wikipedia is like the Bible: It's a nice guide, but it should never be quoted for accuracy.Ridiculous analogy.Not really at all. Everything in the Bible is crosslinked to historical texts, it's just not cleverly hyperlinked. In fact, if you have the right edition of the Bible, it does point out where certain things can be found in other texts both religious and otherwise. I've had teachers on both sides on Wikipedia - one even assigned a reading from it. While most of it is fairly accurate, I never use it in a project or paper without cross-referencing with other sources. Same here. It's a great place to go if you just want to read up on something briefly, but it's never a good idea for an academic paper due to the margin of error and of course the relatively unproven nature of the site. There's a reason why most teachers will require that sources be from academic sources - they're tried and true, they just happen to be online now.
August 28, 200620 yr Ya don't use it for paper, but its a great way to get broad information on a certain subject. It really isn't hard to find the same information from an academic source. Plus a lot of the times Wiki will provide the sources and is a good starting point.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.