Quote:
|
Originally Posted by coberst
This is a response I received that you might find interesting.
I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.
I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.
|
So your saying out of the tons of forums you currently post to, one person responded this way and therefore wikipedia isnt worth a click?
Google search "coberst" and "wikipedia" results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22co...=&start=0&sa=N
Didnt take me long to find a response to you about wikipedia being quite good and I quote "Our E&M prof. mentioned that things like electronics articles can be surprisingly good for what it is that they're trying to convey."
But I dont have time to search thru all the posts and find out what the true balance of the responses was to your queries. What I did find was many responses that were like mine. Good for general info, but if in doubt check for other sources. I wont remind you of things others have said regarding the listing of citations in articles (in reference to above).
One thing I did not find was the original source you quote above, but as I said I did not read all of the hits.
Good bye Chuck.
