The largest peer reviewed encyclopedia in the world is not a credible source

[naez]

you must hate me cuz i rly dont use drugs

[naez]

also far too noble to freebase rock

[Hasbinbad]

Naez, lol at your use of peer reviewed in this case.

Peer reviewed doesn't mean dick in and of itself. It only means something when the author is a scientist/professional/doctor/expert, so that the peers of this person would also - by the nature of the word peer - be scientists/professionals/doctors/experts as well.

Even if the original author of a wikipedia is a professional or expert in the industry, that doesn't mean that everyone who can edit that wikipedia necessarily is. The fact is that the scholar trying to do research has no reasonable assurance that what he or she is looking at represents factual information, let alone in a format which could be termed a cohesive whole, without major gaps in content.

I have a feeling you understand all of this, and are just mad about not being able to use wikipedia, but you should really not use the term "peer-reviewed" so lightly, as it really represents something that is not what wikipedia is.

[jarshale]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Even if the original author of a wikipedia is a professional or expert in the industry, that doesn't mean that everyone who can edit that wikipedia necessarily is.

[booter]

You are doing it wrong. Don't source Wikipedia itself.

Say you are doing a paper on the Economy of Norway - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

Go to the References at the bottom - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...way#References

Use THOSE are your sources.

This is what you learn in college.

[Hottbiscuits Dreadmuffin]

College is not about learning the material.

It's learning how to play The Game.

[Drem]

so true

[God-King Abacab]

College is a joke...

I can safely tell you that you could probably pull a 4.0 in any level 100-400 liberal arts class using wikipedia, meaning any anthropology, sociology, political science, history, and international relations course can be summed up and generalized in a few wikipedia pages/

Out of the 124 credit hours needed for a B.A or B.S you could pull your 30 major credits and another 60+ electives and cores from those same "wikiable" classes listed above and do fairly well.

You got to wonder about classes like science, math, and foreign language, in other words shit that can't be googled and slapped on a paper? Simple. You can just take a couple 90-minute CLEP/DSST exams and you now have 22+ credit hours in those subjects with very minimal effort (because shit like earth/space, french culture, and basic algebra count as college credit from a majority of institutions)

When I was a freshman, I took 12 credit hours in pottery, guitar ensemble, ethics, photography (passed all courses with a 3.7) by the time I was enrolled by next year I had 67 credit hours, because during intercession I took a handful of CLEP tests that took probably about 2-3 days to complete in a computer lab... Essentially over summer I had enough credit hours to walk out with an associates.

[deakolt]

Originally Posted by Nocte [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That site cannot create an arc length parametrization or compute a surface integral or create a differential equation that describes population based on multiple parameters.

That piece of shit can't even work a goddamn word problem.

pretty sure it can solve those problems tho

[deakolt]

Originally Posted by booter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are doing it wrong. Don't source Wikipedia itself.

Say you are doing a paper on the Economy of Norway - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

Go to the References at the bottom - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...way#References

Use THOSE are your sources.

This is what you learn in college.

qft