Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
NOT wikipedia, as much as I appreciate it I want something reliable and scientific and not edited by the public plz
forgot about that, will try it. Thanks!
I'm getting pretty tired of people denigrating Wikipedia because they're too thick or lazy to consult either the section of each article that shows the author's references (JUST LIKE IN ACTUAL BOOKS) or the discussion pages underneath articles - both of which are invaluable in determining the veracity of what you've just read.
How about you try to use your own initiative instead of shitting on the hard work of others?
Also: Now that I've got the berating you out of the way - how about Scholarpedia? Articles are peer-reviewed there. I don't know to what degree those peers are reputable, check it out anyway.
I'm not allowed to use wikipedia and it's like a lecturer said, one little fact they've accidentally got wrong or misunderstood and you've got the wrong idea too. I'd never thought of it that way before. I often read the wikipedia just to get the gist and general understanding but get the detail from a book...but the books I have here aren't telling me enough today. I will try scholarpedia though, thanks
in fact, one of the problems wikipedia often has is with people altering correct information to incorrect information, based on mistakes in 'reputable' encyclopedias.
of course, wikipedia has a lot of faults, but really, no encyclopedia is a particularly good source.
Exactly, which is where the discussion pages come in handy: Reading the conversations (and sometimes arguments) concerning the various edits to a page can give you a good view on which parts and/or authors are reputable or not. From there you can make your own decision how you use the information provided.
nothing's perfect. I'm not talking about basing my entire understanding of a subject on something I read on the internet or on ten lines in an actual paper encyclopedia.
it allows you to actually witness the process by which the material is produced, it is clear about its sources, and it is generally transparent about the whole process. this is an advantage.
How would anyone know if you were using Wikipedia if you were using it properly - by checking the referenced sources on the topic you're supposed to be researching?
This thread wasn't so you could all tell me how great wikipedia is, it certainly has its place and I know how to use it. I don't want to rely on it though, there must be something else out there I can try. I was using it yesterday for quite specific things and some parts of the articles were badly written or needed citation - I need something else to read in these cases and when the books I have have failed me.
every few seconds a thing came up saying I was trying to view premium content and did I want a free trial? I might have a look again though and see if I can get round this. My mum's bringing the Britannica CD roms to me in a couple of weeks though, aah pre-internet information. I often found it was useful.
many have subscriptions to britannica that are accessible from your home using your library account/the library homepage
I joined the library up here so I could try that, thanks!