| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: Wikipedia is really useful |
 |
|
If I hadn't been using wikipedia then I wouldn't have found this site and their story is one that should never be forgotten.
http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/sandakan/sand10.htm
The worst part for me was this
| Quote: |
Wall and Nelson�s work was added to in 1989 with the publication of Athol Moffitt�s Project Kingfisher. Moffitt, who had been the Australian prosecutor at the trial in 1946 of Sandakan camp commander, Captain Hoshijima Susumi, was able to reveal from his knowledge of the war crimes interrogation documents
| Quote: |
| that the last POWs had been killed at Ranau on 27 August 1945, well after the Japanese surrender. |
They had undoubtedly died, in Moffitt�s view, to stop them being able to testify to the atrocities committed by the guards. Moffitt also revealed, for the first time since the 1940s, that there had been a plan--Project Kingfisher--to rescue the prisoners. The reasons why the plan was never put into operation remain contentious. For whatever reasons it was never implemented, it is still sad to think that it might have been possible to rescue some of the POWs and so to have prevented the final catastrophe of Sandakan.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bibbitybop
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And wikipedia should never be used for credible information, especially in an academic context. It's useful for oversight info, but needs to be verified when it counts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if you don't trust the info that I posted, check the link. If you are just warning about trusting the info on wikipedia, then thats a given.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bibbitybop
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
Well, if you don't trust the info that I posted, check the link. If you are just warning about trusting the info on wikipedia, then thats a given.
|
I'm not arguing the point in your post, just commenting on wikipedia.
It should be a given that wikipedia isn't reliable, but it's not. University students often cite wikipedia, and hopefully their prof corrects them. The general population who didn't go to uni or went before the age of the modern Internet doesn't have the profs and often takes what's written to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wiki is not an absolute but it is a good starting point.
I wouldn't use it a reference in a paper.
However I would use it to get a list references to use in a paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The internet is useful!
Just found out how to get a sticky bathtub tap off the wall--jam the back end of a wrench in there and turn. I probably would've rendered it unserviceably ugly with a pipe wrench tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
^I could've told you that.
Just ask next time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wikipedia didn't really exist when I was an undergrad, but in grad school I very often used it as a starting point for research. Not my only starting point, mind you, but I found that I could usually find a new angle on something, along with supporting resources very easily. I cited Wikipedia in every one of my papers. At first, some of my profs complained about it, but here is the simple argument that I gave them, which has satisfied every single professor-slash-teacher-slash-student that I ever talked to about it:
I used the site in the course of my research.
Now, if you're doing some 300-level liberal arts course where part of the assignment is to use X amount of citations, then you probably shouldn't count wiki as one of your citations. But you should still cite it because you used it in your research.
After all, isn't that what citations are for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Khenan wrote: |
Wikipedia didn't really exist when I was an undergrad, but in grad school I very often used it as a starting point for research. Not my only starting point, mind you, but I found that I could usually find a new angle on something, along with supporting resources very easily. I cited Wikipedia in every one of my papers. At first, some of my profs complained about it, but here is the simple argument that I gave them, which has satisfied every single professor-slash-teacher-slash-student that I ever talked to about it:
I used the site in the course of my research.
Now, if you're doing some 300-level liberal arts course where part of the assignment is to use X amount of citations, then you probably shouldn't count wiki as one of your citations. But you should still cite it because you used it in your research.
After all, isn't that what citations are for? |
I am not sure about arts references work but in science I guess you could use it as a personal communications, i.e. cited in the body of your work but not in your reference list. But to be on the safe side I wouldn't use it.
Like you, wikipedia didn’t exist when I was an undergrad and I wouldn’t even consider using it in postgrad. I have failed a number of my students for using wiki as a main reference
No offence but from the tone of your post it sounds like you were referencing it just to try to prove a point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
No offence but from the tone of your post it sounds like you were referencing it just to try to prove a point. |
Well... that might be half true. If anything though, my point was that the site deserved citation - particularly due to its high utility, but especially because I used the site in the course of my research. It's immoral from a researcher's point of view to not give credit for something you used in your research. I hope no one ever neglects to cite your papers simply because they didn't quote you directly. The fact is that it's a great site and incredibly useful for digging up preliminary info and leads on a topic. Why on Earth anyone would think I shouldn't use it for this is beyond me.
| blackjack wrote: |
I am not sure about arts references work but in science I guess you could use it as a personal communications |
As far as referencing the site goes, I know that APA and MLA formats both have a specific citation format for 'Online Encyclopedia.' I have always assumed that Wiki falls under this catagory.
Personal communication...? No offence but from the tone of your post it sounds like you, sir, are a hater!  If you really teach postgrad classes, you should know damn well that a personal communication is for something spoken or written specifically to you - hence the personal part. And no, you may not quote me on this.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Khenan wrote: |
| blackjack wrote: |
No offence but from the tone of your post it sounds like you were referencing it just to try to prove a point. |
Well... that might be half true. If anything though, my point was that the site deserved citation - particularly due to its high utility, but especially because I used the site in the course of my research. It's immoral from a researcher's point of view to not give credit for something you used in your research. I hope no one ever neglects to cite your papers simply because they didn't quote you directly. The fact is that it's a great site and incredibly useful for digging up preliminary info and leads on a topic. Why on Earth anyone would think I shouldn't use it for this is beyond me.
| blackjack wrote: |
I am not sure about arts references work but in science I guess you could use it as a personal communications |
As far as referencing the site goes, I know that APA and MLA formats both have a specific citation format for 'Online Encyclopedia.' I have always assumed that Wiki falls under this catagory.
Personal communication...? No offence but from the tone of your post it sounds like you, sir, are a hater! If you really teach postgrad classes, you should know damn well that a personal communication is for something spoken or written specifically to you - hence the personal part. And no, you may not quote me on this. |
I don't teach postgrad I am a postgrad in the final stages of writing up my beast of a thesis (i would use another word being with b but the swear filters wouldn't let me)  I teach the odd undergrad class and help tutor foreign students in postgrad (mainly in the correct use of science terms and how to reference ).
Personal communication can also be used for things like study guides or lectures. They don't have to be directed at you (however they typically are).
I don't think you could classify wiki as an on-line Encyclopedia under the APA guide lines (it is technically an encylopedia but well ...)
I do acknowledge your point in that it is important to cite your references, however I look at it like when you are doing your discovery. You reference everything you use, but some articles can direct you on different paths, you don't have to reference articles that made you investigate a different line of thought.
I can see your point but I still think wiki references should not be used in scientific writing.
Sorry for the poorly structured rebuttal but in a bit of a rush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
