i'm sorry, but you're missing the point. it's not ironic when someone takes free content and uses it on a book about free content. it's practicing what you preach.
we live in a copy and paste world and that's that.
Actually, I'm doing my masters in new media communications and I regularly use Wikipedia as a reference to find primary sources.
Most people don't realise that it is becoming common practice for experts in given fields to contribute to their field's Wikipedia entry. Often its expected that PhD students contribute something. Yes, Wikipedia is open to everyone, but there are pretty strict editorial policies that the site has to deal with spamming and uncited sources.
When looking at an entry, use your brain. Does it have have an extensive reference list? Are these references solid? How is the writing style of the entry? These things will tell you about the quality of the entry. A well-written, well-researched Wikipedia article can be extremely useful to scholars. Of course, like any reference, they should not be relied on exclusively.
Anyone who thinks the Internet and wikis are the first media texts to undermine 'facts' and critical thinking are in for a shock.
@cassiemajestic: That's precisely how I use Wikipedia, and I'm a journalist. You can often ignore the article content and just go straight to the links cited.
@MrInBetween: Smart people know how and when to use Wikipedia. They do make things called "footnotes" and "references", in which the information you are reading could be based off of totally.
Of course, you could always cover your eyes and say that unless you read it in a book (which is, by definition, just written by anyone no matter what their qualifications) it isn't true.
@croush1211: Hmm? I'm not one of these smart people who use Wikipeda so I'm not following you or, perhaps, you misunderstood me... Of course some smart people use Wikipedia. But smart authors never use Wikipedia to write their books.
06/24/09
we live in a copy and paste world and that's that.
06/23/09
Most people don't realise that it is becoming common practice for experts in given fields to contribute to their field's Wikipedia entry. Often its expected that PhD students contribute something. Yes, Wikipedia is open to everyone, but there are pretty strict editorial policies that the site has to deal with spamming and uncited sources.
When looking at an entry, use your brain. Does it have have an extensive reference list? Are these references solid? How is the writing style of the entry? These things will tell you about the quality of the entry. A well-written, well-researched Wikipedia article can be extremely useful to scholars. Of course, like any reference, they should not be relied on exclusively.
Anyone who thinks the Internet and wikis are the first media texts to undermine 'facts' and critical thinking are in for a shock.
06/24/09
Really? Does your source on this assertion happen to be...Wikipedia?
06/23/09
wait, what?
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
Of course, you could always cover your eyes and say that unless you read it in a book (which is, by definition, just written by anyone no matter what their qualifications) it isn't true.
06/23/09