- This topic has 5 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
Scout, this evening in class we were talking about postmodernism and how Wikipedia is a “postmodern” idea. I told the class your story about how you wrote that Charlemagne was black on Wikipedia, and how it remained up there for three weeks. It got a few laughs. ;D
There are people that know wikipedia is not to be trusted yet still cite it. I remember seeing something in a journal about how many news sources use wikipedia, we would be amazed. Or probably not.Incidentally, I was at Fort Benning, GA last year to attend a school and while there I went to the National Infantry Museum. Benning is the home of the infantry, after all. What shocked me about the museum is how many of there exhibits cited wikipedia as a source. They have at least three historians on staff who should know better. I actually asked the curator about it after introducing myself. He said they cite wikipedia so visitors can look stuff up later if they want. I was dismayed and pointed out the number of reputable shallow web sites available if they had to use the web. He just repeated that that is what everybody is familiar with.In some ways the internet is good, forums like this are an example, in others it is horrible and wikipedia is an example of that. I personally would never publish anything on wikipedia because any moron can come along and change it. And my work is too valuable to me personally to let some faceless person edit my work.
Citing Wikipedia is common and absurd — it's like citing “The National Inquirer” — how long before people start citing “The Onion”?
Citing Wikipedia is common and absurd -- it's like citing "The National Inquirer" -- how long before people start citing "The Onion"?
I have seen "The Onion" cited in an academic paper before. Admittedly it was a paper on postmodernism but an academic paper nonetheless.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
