--- Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 00:47 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:
Interesting. A remarkable insight. So not only is Wikipedia not NPOV or trustable, but it's OK because encylopedias, including textbooks, in general are not considered reliable sources by higher education. Could
I
get the references that showed that consensus among professors also refused other encyclopedias and not
just
Wikipedia? Do they have any findings with regard to
other
reference sources, such as textbooks and dictionaries?
like; if Wikipedia were somehow certified as completely neutral and reliable by some hypothetical authority, it would still, as a tertiary source, be no more appropriate as a cited reference for the kind of work I'm referring to.
No more appropriate according to what?
As far as data on professors' views of Wikipedia, I don't have anything at my fingertips, but I'm speaking more about a general principle than the current views of a majority of professionals in higher education. From personal experience, I /can/ state that in
Oh, no more appropriate according to your original, unsourced, unverifiable personal claims. You're an expert? A scholar? Essjay also had lots of personal scholarly experience to share. LOL.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7