Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Does Wikipedia get an unfair press?
- Thread starter Fassa Albrecht
- Start date
I have no idea what that last thing is - maybe I should check on Wiki!!??
You could always get revenge by adding footnotes on Shergold headstocks..........
I have no idea what that last thing is - maybe I should check on Wiki!!??
I just googled that and guess what....
I might feel compelled to add that Shergolds are thin, brittle and tinny-sounding - which is why Peter Hook chose it for a "lead bass" - whereas when he was playing actual bass lines, he used a Rick or synth bass!!
I don't think it gets bad press.
Sure, you can't reference it an use it as a validated source of information. Why? Because A) It isn't validated B) The information could be there one day and gone the next (a reason why web sources in general aren't terribly useful).
(I realise you can reference web pages and put a time/date reference with it, but it is still pretty useless if someone else can't use your reference to get the information you originally used).
The main problem with wiki, as said, is it's nature causes it to be uncertified.
However, I must say I have used it a number of times for references. It often gives a good overview of a subject, and if it is a well done article, it will contain some supporting information or papers which you can use
Sure, you can't reference it an use it as a validated source of information. Why? Because A) It isn't validated B) The information could be there one day and gone the next (a reason why web sources in general aren't terribly useful).
(I realise you can reference web pages and put a time/date reference with it, but it is still pretty useless if someone else can't use your reference to get the information you originally used).
The main problem with wiki, as said, is it's nature causes it to be uncertified.
However, I must say I have used it a number of times for references. It often gives a good overview of a subject, and if it is a well done article, it will contain some supporting information or papers which you can use
I might feel compelled to add that Shergolds are thin, brittle and tinny-sounding -
Much like your bones. Well, in honor of helping out the elderly, I've provided you this picture explaining everything for you. Hope it helps old man. Be sure to take your nap today. Don't want you getting grumpy for dinner now do we.
I have very heavy bones - well that's my main excuse anyway!!
And I don't think you should mock the afflicted - that'll be you, one day ...
And I don't think you should mock the afflicted - that'll be you, one day ...
I have very heavy bones - well that's my main excuse anyway!!
And I don't think you should mock the afflicted - that'll be you, one day ...
Ok, I won't mock you anymore. I owe you a beer Brucey.
I think this is the big problem - people LIKE Wiki, as it is easy to use - with no regard to whether it is the best or most appropriate source!
And it's a reason why the press has to weigh on the other side of the balance. I think people's initial enthusiasm about this free open encyclopedia comes a little too high, in which case it is appropriate to shake things up a bit.
Wrong! I've only ever written one Wikipedia article, on the Shergold Marathon.
Come on, you expect me not to have done something Shergold and Wikipedia related?
Wikipedia is a good tool to FIND sources, as many well written pages on the site are linked to real articles that you CAN use in papers. If you find info you want to use, look for it's source in the footnotes and go to the web page it originally came from. Check the validity of that web page to see if its a legitimate source and bingo, you've used Wikipedia to find real information.
I can remember in my French classes at school I used to use the French and English versions of articles to learn specialist vocab.
