2008/8/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901...
- d.
You mean you may run into some power tripping professors. There isn't much to be done about that problem.
I find the "despite an 8,000-some-volume library and the digital online collection with access to more than 300 databases" thing to be worrying.
8000 books isn't actually very many particularly when you consider that most will be out of date (if they aren't your field of study is effectively dead and it's time to move elsewhere well either that or you are studying core maths) and a pretty high percentage of the remainder will be written to allow the author to push their point of view rather than actively inform. 300 databases sounds good until you realise that we have no idea if they are on topic and how database is being defined. Access to more than 300 databases could mean that they have access to a bunch of back issues of chemistry physics and biology journals quite possible if they just have access to the standard University of Virginia research database.
The problem is that we have tens, even hundreds, of thousands of students who routinely consult Wikipedia when doing research, but don't cite it, and perhaps are not allowed to. There are a lot of folks who don't understand plagiarism, thinking it applies to copying material, but not to use of information.
The typical response is "Well, I look at the Wikipedia article, but don't use it. I use the sources it cites... Using those sources is using information from the article. They are part of it. To say nothing of orienting themselves regarding the subject by reading, and using the ideas from the Wikipedia article.
Fred
2008/8/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901...
- d.
You mean you may run into some power tripping professors. There isn't much to be done about that problem.
I find the "despite an 8,000-some-volume library and the digital online collection with access to more than 300 databases" thing to be worrying.
8000 books isn't actually very many particularly when you consider that most will be out of date (if they aren't your field of study is effectively dead and it's time to move elsewhere well either that or you are studying core maths) and a pretty high percentage of the remainder will be written to allow the author to push their point of view rather than actively inform. 300 databases sounds good until you realise that we have no idea if they are on topic and how database is being defined. Access to more than 300 databases could mean that they have access to a bunch of back issues of chemistry physics and biology journals quite possible if they just have access to the standard University of Virginia research database.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----- "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 11 August, 2008 00:26:47 AM GMT +00:00 Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The dangers of not citing Wikipedia
The problem is that we have tens, even hundreds, of thousands of students who routinely consult Wikipedia when doing research, but don't cite it, and perhaps are not allowed to. There are a lot of folks who don't understand plagiarism, thinking it applies to copying material, but not to use of information.
The typical response is "Well, I look at the Wikipedia article, but don't use it. I use the sources it cites... Using those sources is using information from the article. They are part of it. To say nothing of orienting themselves regarding the subject by reading, and using the ideas from the Wikipedia article.
Fred
Maybe I am in a different academic field that doesn't emphasise the train of sources, but I have never referenced the articles that I used to get the sources I use for quotes or ideas in my articles... Nothing personal against authors who have really good reference lists, it is just that I reference ideas directly without the chain of evidence I guess.
Cheers,
Peter
Maybe I am in a different academic field that doesn't emphasise the train of sources, but I have never referenced the articles that I used to get the sources I use for quotes or ideas in my articles... Nothing personal against authors who have really good reference lists, it is just that I reference ideas directly without the chain of evidence I guess.
As a student (of mathematics), I've been subjected to the standard lectures about not plagiarising, and I don't remember anything about having to cite the sources of your sources. I wouldn't cite a Wikipedia article that was just used to get me started as wasn't the actual source of any facts included in my work.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I am in a different academic field that doesn't emphasise the train of sources, but I have never referenced the articles that I used to get the sources I use for quotes or ideas in my articles... Nothing personal against authors who have really good reference lists, it is just that I reference ideas directly without the chain of evidence I guess.
As a student (of mathematics), I've been subjected to the standard lectures about not plagiarising, and I don't remember anything about having to cite the sources of your sources. I wouldn't cite a Wikipedia article that was just used to get me started as wasn't the actual source of any facts included in my work.
Ditto.
Though I have in fact been allowed to cite Wikipedia by more than one college professor. I usually approach the ones who disallow it to find out their reasons and after dismantling their arguments with "pro-Wikipedia propaganda" all I can see is some inexplicable deep-seated hatred. Why I don't know.
More than one such professor have been rather old female librarians. Not to stereotype, but I honestly wonder if it's just your typical "kids-these-days" attitudes.
Oh, and the admin bit can be quite useful outside of Wikipedia. I know that on Wikipedia it's not a big deal (debatably) but the rest of the world considers those in a position of power to be some kind of official representative. One professor in particular argued with me for about five minutes in a class completely unrelated to Wikipedia that we required people to have an account to edit any article now and that Wikipedia wasn't what it used to be. A quick "you know I'm a Wikipedia admin, right, and I'd probably know if this happened?" silenced him for a few seconds after which he returned to his lecture without another word on the topic. Say what you will about treating adminship improperly, but it felt damn good.
Anywho...
Though I have in fact been allowed to cite Wikipedia by more than one college professor. I usually approach the ones who disallow it to find out their reasons and after dismantling their arguments with "pro-Wikipedia propaganda" all I can see is some inexplicable deep-seated hatred. Why I don't know.
Wikipedia isn't a good source for university level work. Either the article you're using doesn't have references, in which case it's completely unreliable, or it does have references, in which case you should use them instead (there aren't many sources used as references in Wikipedia articles which aren't accessible to university students).
Oh, and the admin bit can be quite useful outside of Wikipedia. [snip]
I know - I've used it like that before as well! Never in an argument with a lecturer, but in less formal arguments with various people.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia isn't a good source for university level work. Either the article you're using doesn't have references, in which case it's completely unreliable, or it does have references, in which case you should use them instead (there aren't many sources used as references in Wikipedia articles which aren't accessible to university students).
The times I've been allowed to do that have usually been for things like speeches and presentations, not papers. Though one professor did allow it for a somewhat informal research paper. Of course I was a good researcher and checked the linked sources, but sometimes it's nice to cite just one thing (when allowed) than 200 separate things, especially if the one thing summarizes them quite well. I was also a good Wikipedian and corrected a few errors. :)
Oh, and the admin bit can be quite useful outside of Wikipedia. [snip]
I know - I've used it like that before as well! Never in an argument with a lecturer, but in less formal arguments with various people.
Yeah I've used it many a time, but dang, there is nothing better than showing up a professor (especially a rather egocentric one) who takes class time to argue something irrelevant with you. Real-life trolling FTW.
You mean you may run into some power tripping professors. There isn't much to be done about that problem.
Without seeing the paper in question, it's impossible to judge. We don't know how large the apparently small bits that were copied word for word were and we don't know exactly what "paraphrase" means - changing the odd word and rearranging the sentences a bit could qualify as paraphrasing (I would call it copying, but the student in question isn't me), but wouldn't be enough for it to be acceptable to not cite it as coming from Wikipedia (and as a source for a quotation, not just as a source of information).
Also, he says he cited Wikipedia on some parts. If you have inline citations to a source then you're implying that anything not specifically stated as coming from that source didn't do so. If you don't want to cite everything individually, then you need to cite it as a more general reference (which isn't good practise, of course).