QUOTE('Jonny Cache')
Dear Sacasticide-A-List,
Please try the following experiment. Read this recent article in the Chronicle Of Higher Education's Online Rag and read all of the comments, pro and con Wikipedia. Then summarize your impressions of the whole under what you think is the most appropriate title.
We'll compare and contrast anon — that means soon …
Please try the following experiment. Read this recent article in the Chronicle Of Higher Education's Online Rag and read all of the comments, pro and con Wikipedia. Then summarize your impressions of the whole under what you think is the most appropriate title.
We'll compare and contrast anon — that means soon …
1. A faculty member at the University of Texas at Dallas takes the position that Wikipedia can be useful, especially if the history and discussion pages are used to provide some context for what is being read.
2. In response, a number of Wikipedia detractors highlight accuracy-related shortcomings of Wikipedia vis-Ã -vis traditional (i.e. fact-checked) encyclopaedias.
3. A number of other readers argue that, while Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted absolutely, its shortcomings do not prevent it from being useful as a starting point for research.
4. There seems to a be general consensus (har) that Wikipedia's entries on hard science and pop culture are more accurate than its entries on more academic "soft" subjects (history, politics, biography, and the like).
Is this what you were requesting?