I always deal with Wikipedia in my courses. It's just plain stupid to pretend students won't use it. I usually look up the topics we are covering and we talk about the accuracy of the articles. It's very useful since I can make the important point that you can never completely trust ANY single source.
>>> "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7/18/2008 5:01 PM >>> Sad to say Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?hhTest=1. Of course the source is CNet so YMMV. Doug Franklin wrote: > AlunFoto wrote: > >> 2008/7/18 Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> AlunFoto wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Well just kidding, but there's a huge grayzone between generally >>>> agreed-upon facts and opinion-based articles. Just think of the >>>> ever-lasting re-interpretation of history... >>>> >>> Exactly. I'll use it to look up mathematical formulae and things like >>> that, but history, sociology, etc., I'll use a different source. >>> >> hmmm... >> What kind of source would you prefer for such topics? >> > > Current and historical academic literature and other first sources by > preference. If I'm in a hurry, a more traditional encyclopedia with a > reputation for doing the background validation research on the articles > before publishing them, peer-reviewed journals from the field, > well-known and -established monographs, etc. > > -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. !SIG:4881097a67101332813680! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
