I think Shavinder the issue is more about being able to check sources rather than the web itself (although there is a considerable amount of bias against Wikipedia in academic circles).
The ever shifting, changing, nature of web sources makes it difficult to verify that what was seen on a web page is in fact correct. With documents you can in fact go back to the originals and check. Amazingly you often find that there have been mistakes made or in some cases that the document in question does not exist (e.g. it is surprising how many historians cannot read a map). However in my case WEB 2.0 allows me to access on-line content which is often old documents, photographs, maps, newspapers...etc. which expands my research because often in the pre web times it would be difficult to access all the sources. You can of course take "snapshots" of web pages as a record of what they were when you read them. As an Australian my attitude towards my supervisors was one of healthy scepticism until they proved their worth but I am aware that Americans for example seem to treat their supervisors with awe. Regards Iain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
