Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4m articles, is almost as accurate on scientific topics as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature said.

The journal compared articles covering a range of sciences just as Wikipedia is under fire over over the accuracy of entries, including a long-running one falsely claiming a prominent journalist was a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said. The average scientific entry in Wikipedia had four errors or omissions, Britannica had three.

[/ QUOTE ]

LINK

Melch

[man]

this totally makes my day after basing half of a recent paper on wikipedia articles.

[David04]

Yesterday my English teacher told us that Wikipedia was not a credible source, and we couldn't use it for papers. I'm going to show this to her on monday.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Yesterday my English teacher told us that Wikipedia was not a credible source, and we couldn't use it for papers. I'm going to show this to her on monday.

[/ QUOTE ]

She'll just claim that the source that says that Wikipedia is a credible source is not a credible source. My professors always gave me the same crap about sources. Just write the paper first and look for sources later...

[InchoateHand]

Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyond Enclycopedias, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[ QUOTE ]
Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyong Enclycopedia, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a question of caring

But yeah, Wikipedia is awesome. I recently looked up Scientology after watching the South Park Episode about it it.....

man, I knew they were a little off but I had no idea untill I read that...

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyond Enclycopedias, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am just going to assume monograph is some sort of primary source. All my courses this year (3rd and 2nd year) now use journal articles as our main source. Its really cool to look at the primary sources for textbooks and encyclopedias, and it also makes it clear that a lot of "facts" in psychology and biology rest on shaky ground. The understanding in experimental methods alone makes journal articals really good to use.

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyond Enclycopedias, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

for anyone else who doesn't know: monograph

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
Yesterday my English teacher told us that Wikipedia was not a credible source, and we couldn't use it for papers. I'm going to show this to her on monday.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically she'll add 2+2 to her black list too

[David04]

I sure hope not, my semester paper discusses the theory behind banging chicks on Myspace. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

But seriously though, I'm going to print out the article, not this thread.