11 Comments

1. Totally ridiculous - - just like the showing up to a final when you can’t pass anyway (though there is something to be said for the failing student studying for the test and at least learning something in the class…though they know they will fail).

   That being said, do you think Wikipedia is just bad in general? I don’t think it should be used as a reference or for any information you are putting into your paper, but it definitely is as good a starting point as any on the web, no? I mean, the other starting point is Google, I guess.

   Comment by Bill K — Monday, May 7, 2024 @ 10:08 am

2. As a starting point, I have not problem with it. I just don’t accept it as a source.

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, May 7, 2024 @ 10:24 am

3. Try this on for size: I had to sit through a meeting with our school’s writing professors and one insisted that Wikipedia really is peer-reviewed, and the rest of us just haven’t come to terms with that yet.

   Comment by Professor Chaos — Monday, May 7, 2024 @ 11:33 am

4. Lovely.

   Of course, I wouldn’t accept the Encyclopedia Britannica for that matter.

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, May 7, 2024 @ 11:48 am

5. What is with people thinking all answers are in Wikipedia!?

   cross-reference people…

   Comment by San — Monday, May 7, 2024 @ 2:37 pm

6. Of the various thinks I have been known to rant about incessantly. . .

   I can tell that your brain hurts. Either that or you are having a Dr. Seuss moment.

   Comment by Jan — Monday, May 7, 2024 @ 5:17 pm

7. What’s wrong with Dr. Seuss?

   (thanks).

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, May 7, 2024 @ 7:55 pm

8. I got scolded in high school for using encyclopedias as sources in a research paper. We’re just lazy bums that need the occasional kick in the pants. It sounds like Professor Taylor has been doing too much kicking.

   Comment by Sean Hackbarth — Tuesday, May 8, 2024 @ 9:05 am

9. Use Wikipedia as a source? No.

   Use Wikipedia as a starting point? Yes.

   The people behind Wikipedia limit it by refusing to even consider the possibility some people are plain full of crap. At the same time, other parties limit Wikipedia’s utility by refusing to make their information available. I’m fairly sure that there’s more information on, for example, Homo cepranensus than the one article Wikipedia links to. But make this information available?

   Academic Publisher: We can’t have that, the wrong sort of people might learn something. Best to keep the plebes ignorant and compliant.

   Comment by Alan Kellogg — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 7:26 am

10. As noted above, it is fine as a starting place. I look at it myself when trying to figure out basic information.

    However, students often glom onto the first bit of information they find. Further, even if Wikipedia were perfect, I wouldn’t let them use it as a source for a research paper, because, like an encyclopedia, it is a summary of information, rather than in-depth analysis.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 7:31 am

11. Academic Publisher: We can’t have that, the wrong sort of people might learn something. Best to keep the plebes ignorant and compliant.

    Actually, it is more like we can’t have the wrong sort writing this stuff, like the guy who pretended to be a religion professor, but was really an undergrad.

    And, on balance, the academic class (the writers) like to share: an awful lot of academic writing is done for free or almost free.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 7:33 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback-poliblog.html?p=11905

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.