One of the people in my group decided to use Wikipedia as a source

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Anubis
wow guess its because wiki was not nearly as big as it is now when i was in school because i never had a prof say they would fail you if you used wiki as a source

They shouldn't NEED to tell you they'll fail you for using Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is (ostensibly) an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. You should never use any type of encyclopedia as a source for a paper. Encyclopedias essentially are collections of research papers.

I learned this in the sixth grade.

:thumbsup:

primary sources all the way.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Anubis
wow guess its because wiki was not nearly as big as it is now when i was in school because i never had a prof say they would fail you if you used wiki as a source

They shouldn't NEED to tell you they'll fail you for using Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is (ostensibly) an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. You should never use any type of encyclopedia as a source for a paper. Encyclopedias essentially are collections of research papers.

ehh i was never told to not cite an Encyclopedias, I know i did this in HS and im fairily sure i did it in college also

That's unfortunate.

why?

thinking about this, the first entry on the sheets on how to properly site sources they handed out was always an Encyclopedia

Encyclopedia in college? You must be joking.

 

[BoomerD]

Almost every class I've had that required a research paper, the professor promised an "F" for any paper that cited Wikipedia.

A couple have allowed information as long as it led to something posted elsewhere, but not the Wikipedia entry itself.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Anubis
wow guess its because wiki was not nearly as big as it is now when i was in school because i never had a prof say they would fail you if you used wiki as a source

They shouldn't NEED to tell you they'll fail you for using Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is (ostensibly) an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. You should never use any type of encyclopedia as a source for a paper. Encyclopedias essentially are collections of research papers.

ehh i was never told to not cite an Encyclopedias, I know i did this in HS and im fairily sure i did it in college also

That's unfortunate.

why?

thinking about this, the first entry on the sheets on how to properly site sources they handed out was always an Encyclopedia

Encyclopedia in college? You must be joking.

no I?m not joking, I?m not positive I used them in college on anything i wrote but i am pretty sure they were never explicitly forbidden

the amount of pure research papers I had to write in college I could count on 1 hand, and they were all physics related, this could be why I don?t remember this ?rule?

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: Cabages
I dont think hes going to be to stringent on the editing, mostly because hes having us put numbers by whatever we want to cite and numbering the works cited page (which isnt a very standard practice right?).

Sounds like IEEE style.

Oh, and your partner sucks.

 

[BD2003]

It really depends on your teacher. For the hard sciences, wiki is a pretty good source (outside of evolution). Anything controversial is risky, but I highly doubt there are any people out there trying to spread misinformation on climate and weather - as long as youre not dealing with global warming.

 

[0roo0roo]

citing wiki directly is fail.
using wiki as a source of easy links, fine. sometimes they cite decent sources. citing wiki directly says you are lazy or stupid. prof probably mark down double...for fear of the future

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I have my calculus book that cites wikipedia as a source... When I saw that I couldn't figure out if i wanted to laugh or cry...

Actually, the journal Nature did a comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britanica. As far as science is concerned, both were just about as accurate. Where Wikipedia really fails is current events, politics, and controversial material. For math & science, it's on a par with just about any other encyclopedia. However, I can't recall ever using an encyclopedia for research since about 6th grade. I believe it was 7th grade that we were taught that an Encyclopedia is only a starting point to get a better idea of what you're writing about.

 

[Cabages]

Its getting down to 8 p.m. now. Paper is due in 13 hours.

I have 8 people in my group and I havent gotten sources from all of them yet. Group project FTFL.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I have my calculus book that cites wikipedia as a source... When I saw that I couldn't figure out if i wanted to laugh or cry...

Actually, the journal Nature did a comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britanica. As far as science is concerned, both were just about as accurate. Where Wikipedia really fails is current events, politics, and controversial material. For math & science, it's on a par with just about any other encyclopedia. However, I can't recall ever using an encyclopedia for research since about 6th grade. I believe it was 7th grade that we were taught that an Encyclopedia is only a starting point to get a better idea of what you're writing about.

Well, unlike most encyclopedias, wiki tends to have far more detail on really specialized subject. It was the only place I could get a clear and basic overview of certain very specific scientific concepts applicable to my research paper, and being that it's highly doubtful anyone is out there to spread misinformation on proteomics, my prof completely agreed that it was a fine source after reading through it.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Cabages
Its getting down to 8 p.m. now. Paper is due in 13 hours.

I have 8 people in my group and I havent gotten sources from all of them yet. Group project FTFL.

I hate depending on other people like that. I always do all the dammed work myself, and if they happen to contribute, I weigh their contributions against my own work, then submit the best material. (usually mine)

A couple of weeks ago, I was assigned a partner with whom I was supposed to brief a case then give a presentation in front of the class. No biggie, easy case.
My partner e-mailed me twice asking if he could do the research and I could do the writing for the presentation...(fucking slacker) blamed it on his work load and school schedule.
I declined and told him to be prepared to brief the entire case by himself, and I'd do the same. I showed up with a nicely done PowerPoint presentation, handouts for the class, and a presentation that covered all the salient points of the case.
He showed up with some good research, but nothing done in the way of a presentation.
We did it my way.
I got an "A" for the presentation, he got a "C+" for his. The instuctor knew who had done what. (I've had him for a couple different classes. He knows my style or writing and presentations.)

I HATE having to rely on other people to get a project done. Always have.

 

[ForumMaster]

since all the info on wikipedia is cited from other sources, siply cite those sources. studies have shown that wikipedia is even more accurate then britanica.

i'm currently writing a project in biology. i never even considered using wikipedia until my teacher told me to do so. i simply cite the sources used in the said wiki article.