Date: 2010-08-16 10:52 am (UTC)
I don't agree with the idea that using Wikipedia is cheating. Most of the time, I use it as a sounding board, and a possible direction to go. Sometimes it offers a area which you can expand, and offers very useful peer accredited sources which you can then list. It is rather ironic that the information found there is perfectly fine, and yet as soon as you mention it's from Wikipedia, it immediately loses any credulity. I'm looking forward to them time when they get people in the field to verify certain pages, and then lock them to the public. Surely then it could be linked, and would be as good as any other site you read as help to a project?
Why is just Wikipedia cheating?

We aren't encouraged to include bibliographies at all, just reference pages of information we actually include ( though they want a figure contents page, which is a nightmare!), and if you include Wiki in your references you can pretty much say goodbye to any sort of impressive grade, and most likely receive a rather scathing comment about being careful what sites you chose. Whilst some of the information may be false or not accurate enough, I still consider Wikipedia an incredible resource.
But we all have to pretend that we don't use it, and read it. Which is a lie I think for almost every single student I have ever met.

Yes, out of all the points in your entry I decide to expand on that one.

While you can respect them, perhaps they don't understand your point of view, and perhaps it is them that has missed something.

With Google books and such, I read their excerpts, particularly if they are text books. My reasoning behind this ( and when does it become an excuse rather than a valid justification?) is that it was put on internet by Google, which got permission from the publisher, often using it as advertising. I tend to only use it to read textbook excerpts, usually because they are ridiculously expensive, and they aren't in the library. I'm not sharing it, and I'm using for academic reasons, and if it truly was useful I would buy it.
Amazon excerpts are kind of giving you the ability to flick through it as you would in a book shop, and I like that.

It is such a wide and complicated subject. But I agree with [livejournal.com profile] smarriveurr, and they raise a very interesting point about copyright infringer. We have all done it, say if you have recorded something off the radio, because strictly? That's illegal.
There really isn't a source which investigates it fully I don't think, in wariness perhaps at encouraging or justifying what copyright infringer's do. It's an idea that is being stolen, and officially that does belong to someone.
Perhaps if no profit is being made by people that don't own copyright, that changes it yet again?

Long reply, but you have got me considering it now.
From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Profile

stephiny: (Default)
stephiny

July 2011

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 07:00 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios