bias against wikipedia is valid. Constructed hypertexts are not citable - a good rule.
Alex 2010/1/4 iain <[email protected]> > 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]<tiddlywiki%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en. > > > -- http://www.multiurl.com/g/64 -- 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.
