MasterP said:
Then it suffers no more from this flaw than any other encyclopedia. When you think about it, the people writing the Britanica or Encarta articles didn’t put EVERY fact in there, they couldn’t without making the encyclopedia twice the volumes that it already is. They summarized while maintaining a certain degree of thoroughness, which is exactly what Wikipedia does, only Wikipedia artcles aren’t limited in length based on arbitrary publishing limits and the more thorough topics usually have dozens of cited sources.
I compleletly agree. I graded a project once where someone used Encarta as their main source. While the information was correct, I still penalized them for not finding the information from 1st/2ndary sources like the assignment asked.
Quote:
If my senior research findings get published, which could happen in the next couple months btw
Wiki will be one of the primary sources. We won’t be laughed at for doing it either.
I will laugh, then realize I have no idea what was said in your paper, then I will look to wiki for the basics.