Quote:
Originally Posted by deltop
I'm also sure that Wikipedia will make more and more strides in the coming years and will become more and more acceptable as a source for general academic research. It's certainly a resource I make use of on a daily basis.
|
Wikipedia is certainly used as a general source to read up on various things. But, it is not used for CITING in an academic paper. Big difference. One is talking about in the process of doing research while the other is talking about the process of producing writing.
For one thing, scholars do not generally cite encyclopedias (printed or non-printed versions) at all for their research. Though likely reputable, these sources are too general. Instead, a credible scholar will look at other sources. This is not to say that an encyclopedia won't be used in the process of doing research but it will NOT be used as a source material for the actual writing itself.
Case in point: I'm doing some reading on gossip and rumours as it has been studied by anthropologists. Gossip used to be a hot research topic in anthropology but no longer is the case. Niko Besnier is a contemporary scholars who has revived this topic. He has an encyclopedia entry in an anthropology encyclopedia. I've read that entry and find it useful. He also has a bibliography at the end of his entry. That is what I turn to in step 2 to do further reading. When I write my chapter on gossip in my own fieldsite, I won't be citing the encyclopedia entry but possibly the other sources he lists in addition to others I find.