Most, if not all, of my professors in college were perfectly okay with their students citing Wikipedia. So, Wikipedia is certainly not the academically reliable and acceptable website. Anyone can go in there and edit anything or even suggest an edit and apparently it'll happen. Thus, my opponent's bind fails and this point must be ignored. He could of in fact had a different intent but changed it so it would be to his advantage. Thus, he fails on the burden of proof. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the or with a at the top of the article.
As such, this point is invalid. I they seem to be very knowledge go and check out their work to see what other other work they have done so you can continue to follow what they do and what they appear to be knowledgable in. If it is possible to make improvements to Wikipedia, I think that would be ideal because Wikipedia already has an established brand name and large pool of users. Your teacher will think you are at best lazy and at worst an idiot if you do. To ensure you're getting good scholarly information, you have to go directly to the sources Wikipedia cites and, if necessary, to the sources they cite. It can be a great starting point for learning about an unfamiliar topic, and sometimes it offers the best way to track down those pesky facts and statistics that more scholarly, analytically inclined sources gloss over. These inaccuracies are why most documents on Wikipedia are never considered complete, and they are continually edited and improved on over time.
His discontent is motivating him to create a new online encyclopedia called Citizendium. I agree with many of the comments above that state that Wikipedia can be a good base for ideas and brain-storming. Wikipedia Academic has posted an article explaining why it is a bad idea Below is the article: Caution: It is often a bad idea to cite an encyclopedia in academic research papers. My opponent then states that Wikipedia is as good as Encyclopedia Britannica and supports this with an article. The ability to clink on links is nice.
Encyclopedia Brittanica for instance has the power to decide what they publish and what not to publish. I frequently use Wikipedia if I need quick information on something; however, I agree with the other comments in that I do not consider it reliable enough to site in any work that I turn in. Not to mention that there are experts in these areas that check the validity of these sources. We must consider the fish to ensure the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of creatures for the greatest amount of time as my opponent's definition considers only one type of creature. As he gives no proof that he is not lying, he cannot be a reliable source. To refute this, I only need to point out again that six percent of all Wikipedia articles contain at least one unverified statement.
I will admit that on my first essay I did cite wikipedia, slaps wrist, boohissboo. C He then assumes that if the 2 are equal in science, they are equal in everything. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see. To their credit, most aren't going to deny reality, but things are still going to have a bit of a light bias simply because that's how people are. For instance, I have written an article on the 1956 Japanese film Warning from Space and the 1997 German mathematics book The Number Devil , but I am not an expert in Japanese cinema or German literature. As using a computer would require them to stand still, using Wikipedia would require them to die.
At the risk of being accused of fixing a vote, I handed all 7 points to pro, not because I feel pro is worthy of recognition but rather because I found con's arguments to be so awful. If anyone is in search of information very urgently, he can approach this website to make a start with and later on jump into the links which might lead to other articles. This is a part of how Wikipedia wishes to attain its goals. An article that is in good shape today may be in poor shape tomorrow, and vice versa. Probably no one is going to check the source anyway, especially if you've written the article well and apparently neutrally. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited. I think it also does a good job at showing what subjects and categories relate to what and therefore gives people a quick overview of the entire context of a subject.
Another reason why you should go beyond Wikipedia in doing research is that your professors want to see that you have done the hard work of looking up sources in a library or online database. Learning to do a library search of scholarly articles to incorporate in academic writing for expository, persuasive, or other types of essays is a very important skill. For example, people regulate fish bowls. Right, when a professor tells you that you shouldn't cite Wikipedia, that's usually true of any encyclopedia. The footnote directed me to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute articles and information.
Your teacher can tell you for certain if you can use this source. March 25, 2007 Posted by Elaine in. Had he just lifted something verbatim and pasted it in? I am sorry, but I do not want a lunatic with a computer rewriting history. According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the at a much greater rate than several years ago. Wikipedia joins this social revolution and allows you to join the conversation and create knowledge. With Wikipedia, anyone can submit an article, which means that in niche or obscure topics, an expert on that subject matter can actually provide their insight and knowledge.
Article by , EducationWorld Associate Editor ® Copyright © 2012 Education World. Its model of online ethical standards declares that non-print and electronic sources must be treated with the same respect as printed materials. It will also enable users to edit and add information. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Furthermore, this article , show that over 50% of aquatic life will be gone by 2050 at the current rate. However, contributors will be expected to provide identification.
I looked up south Korea they gave me 193 credible sources. Furthermore, the article only states that they are close to equal in science. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. The footnotes operate like citations—a hyperlinked notation on the page directs the user to an original source. The goal here is not to take Wikipedia as gospel but to use it to focus your research via links, keywords and references and get a little context via background information.