EPTI wrote a paper on Starcraft for my final in class - Page 2
| Blogs > JayConn |
|
tl2212
Belize731 Posts
| ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On August 01 2013 06:17 FryBender wrote: So what happens when your teacher goes to the wikipedia page for Day9 and somebody decides to have some fun with Sean's page (adding things that say he's an internationally renowned butt pirate etc...)? Seriously why would you think internet links to reddit, TL, and wikipedia would be appropriate citations? Edit: Just realized you linked Tasteless' page but my point still stands FYI there are bots that stop blatant vandalism. Also there is an edit history page for each wiki page for each edit which can also be discussed. Discussed by the team of wiki champs and volunteers. If you don't have sources, they usually remit whatever was posted within a day or so. I know because I am always editing obscure content onto random wiki pages with improper formatting or sources and they just revert to the previous page. Need proof? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sucklord Wikipedia is legit. Especially when it comes to science, facts, and history stuff. The articles are locked and to change them you go through a lengthy process. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
The source for the correct info was always available in the source. Let's not forget that Don Mattrick's wikipedia page was hammered by trolls after the Xbone fiasco. Wikipedia is legit most of the time. Not enough for academia. | ||
micronesia
United States24502 Posts
On August 02 2013 01:22 Djzapz wrote: One of my teacher once made a subtle change to Wikipedia's page on the Canadian Parliament just to prove a point. The "mistake" stayed for the entire semester before he changed it back. After the semester ended, he sent us all an email... It turns out, somebody reverted the correct info back to the wrong one. Now for all we know, it could have been one of my classmates who was being a dick, but I don't know. The source for the correct info was always available in the source. Let's not forget that Don Mattrick's wikipedia page was hammered by trolls after the Xbone fiasco. Wikipedia is legit most of the time. Not enough for academia. I don't think the issue is necessarily about how often it's legit. In fact, in some aspects Wikipedia (not viable for a reference in a formal paper) is more accurate on average than legitimate sources. That does not change the fact that Wikipedia, even in relation to that aspect, should not be directly referenced. The value of a reference to a formal paper is not determined by how likely the reference is to be true; it is by the process by which the reference was written. That said, wikipedia is a great resource so long as you don't directly source it for any formal work. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: I don't think the issue is necessarily about how often it's legit. In fact, in some aspects Wikipedia (not viable for a reference in a formal paper) is more accurate on average than legitimate sources. That does not change the fact that Wikipedia, even in relation to that aspect, should not be directly referenced. The value of a reference to a formal paper is not determined by how likely the reference is to be true; it is by the process by which the reference was written. That said, wikipedia is a great resource so long as you don't directly source it for any formal work. I didn't mean to imply that the value of a source is how often it's legit... but the fact that it clearly isn't some of the time is enough to invalidate it. | ||
| ||
