On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The academics at my uni think the wikipedia is mildly
offensive, in
the sense that they enjoy being paid to write
books/journals/whathaveyou, and don't enjoy seeing amateurs giving it
away for free. Because of this, and our noticable failings, students
are penalised if they attempt to cite the wikipedia as a source at my
uni.
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly
informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is
dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than
commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online
university database was praised (it includes a subscription to
britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
Well, I'd've gotten penalized for citing Wikipedia too, but I'd also
have gotten penalized for citing Britannica. However, various features
of Wikipedia made it much better as a quick study aid than the more
academically respectable references, and no one was ever the wiser.
And it is good as a study aid -- but most university students I know
*need* to be cautioned that not everything they read on the internet
that looks legit is true. (I love Wikipedia, and I am an optimist,
but, well...)
-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]
wannabe academic
--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams