View Single Post
Old 05-09-2009, 05:25 PM   #58
thibaulthalpern
Evangelist
thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.thibaulthalpern ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 478
Karma: 451808
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: California, USA
Device: my two eyes, KLiiK, Sony PRS-700
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltop View Post
I'm quite happy to admit that anecdotal evidence from my father in law hardly makes for a damning indictment of Wikipedia Unfortunately I don't really have the to time to conduct my own full scale scientific study of the problem. But I will endeavor to look up and read some of the studies that have been done on the issue.
One could go the website of almost any university library and do a search for "wikipedia" or "citation" and most of them, if not all, will say do not use Wikipedia (in its current form) as a cited source for scholarly papers. That is, don't use it as a "works cited" unless, as I mentioned previously, you're using Wikipedia as an example of "x", as opposed to an authoritative source. University Librarians and Reference Librarians think and research seriously about how to guide patrons in using materials.

I posted one from Yale University a few posts up.
thibaulthalpern is offline   Reply With Quote