It's not so much that Wikipedia isn't well written or easy too read, its that it's possible that it could be one random persons opinion on the topic. Which could be bad depending on its use.
Yes, quite so. It's just that I have run into a lot of people in my work life and social life who reject it as useless out of hand, which is just STUPID. Yes, there are random fanboys writing drivel, but there are also very smart, very well qualified people writing good stuff. It all depends on who the author is. And, yes, sometimes they are a bit monomaniacal :-) But that can be useful when writing an encyclopedia.
That's the other thing that gets my goat. I've been doing an online course, and we're all told every time that "Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for research papers." Well of COURSE! But not because it's cr@p (which is what's implied, and is more clearly spelled out when you question it) but because it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If someone doing a paper for a postgraduate course thinks that *any* encyclopedia is a good reference source for citable material, they've failed one of elements of Research 101. Encyclopedias are (if they are any good) a worthwhile *starting* point for research on a subject one doesn't know much about. But for the material one should be basing a paper on, one needs to dig far deeper into the subject than encyclopedia articles.
I feel like Professor Diggory; "What ARE they teaching children in schools these days?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 03:04 am (UTC)Yes, quite so. It's just that I have run into a lot of people in my work life and social life who reject it as useless out of hand, which is just STUPID. Yes, there are random fanboys writing drivel, but there are also very smart, very well qualified people writing good stuff. It all depends on who the author is. And, yes, sometimes they are a bit monomaniacal :-) But that can be useful when writing an encyclopedia.
That's the other thing that gets my goat. I've been doing an online course, and we're all told every time that "Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for research papers." Well of COURSE! But not because it's cr@p (which is what's implied, and is more clearly spelled out when you question it) but because it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If someone doing a paper for a postgraduate course thinks that *any* encyclopedia is a good reference source for citable material, they've failed one of elements of Research 101. Encyclopedias are (if they are any good) a worthwhile *starting* point for research on a subject one doesn't know much about. But for the material one should be basing a paper on, one needs to dig far deeper into the subject than encyclopedia articles.
I feel like Professor Diggory; "What ARE they teaching children in schools these days?"
Oh, and welcome to LJ, Josh! :-)