Lecturer bans students from using Google and Wikipedia.

Wiki and google are good for a starting point, but nothing beats libraries and academic databases. I know I would have failed if I tried to cite Wikipedia as a reference in any of my essays....and I was doing a photography degree.

 

I plugged this into Google answers and the answer is: No.

 

the tutors at my uni won't allow you to reference wikipedia, as it's an inaccurate source of information.

however, there is an academic version of google that searches academic sources etc.

 

Most all internet information should be crossed referenced or at the very least taken with a grain of salt.

That being said, I motion to edit Tara Brabazon's wikipedia page to say she was consumed by a 400lb hamster just the other day.

 

No I don't think they should be banned from using google or wikipedia. It is sometimes blatantly obvious that they used those particular search engines and they should be graded accordingly.

I think the whole time I've been in university I've gone to the library once to do research. Everything else I use the research databases provided by the library's website (requires you to log in using your ID card). Being a sociology major, many of my courses have had us do a mandatory session where we go to the library and learn how to properly use the online research databases for any research that we have to do.

 

Why is a book written on paper inherrently more trustworthy source than something published on the internet? Can I not also be inaccurate in a published book?

 

Both are amazing resources (Wikipedia has been shown by independant studies to be as accurate as Britanica!!) - the point of the article is that relying on one resource, and neglecting other (often, but not always better) resources is a mistake. I doubt any serious researcher would advocate NEVER using the internet, but this is being set as an EXERCISE for the students. As such I think it's a good exercise. If you've ever marked a student project report you'll find that EVERY reference is just a website - even when you know there's a book which would have told them everything they need to know in the library, they probably haven't read it.

It's no different than being told by your bass teacher to stop using pentatonic scales in your solo's. It's not because there's anything inherently wrong with them (they sound great!), but they're an easy, quick fix. If I "couldn't" use them, I'd be forces to engage with some deeper ideas. Once I've broadened my knowledge I'd be free to throw the quick/easy techniques back in again, but I'd be doing so as a conscious choice, not because I don't have other options.

That a good student exercise has been turned into some kind of crusade is just poor journalism.

Ian

 

google Scholar


I have just finished my honours year, and I'll admit, I did use Wiki and Google. Wiki provided a good background knowledge and acted as a good starting place, also, any decent Wiki article tends to have references, which is good, as you then go on to read them, and then the references from those references etc.

Google Scholar was also used alot, it is just a great way to search all the scientific journals!

Why ban something? Because it is new and effective? Nobody tends to accept Wiki pages or general web pages found off google as good references anyway, it is just a great way of getting to useful sources.

 

All I can say is I completed my education, pre-internet. Seeing the way my kids do their school assignments these days.........they have it REALLY easy I had to carry books around, read, interpret and write my own words......BY HAND As you guys mentioned it wont be as easy in college but the internet makes high school a breeze.

 

Most cutting edge information is not found in books...the lead time for publication is too great. The web is an excellent source for locating & downloading current information from peer reviewed journals (often at a considerable cost), and everyone performing any type of research needs to know how to use it effectively.

Google & Wikipedia can be useful for free quick overviews and locating general references. They are what they are. I think part of an effective course in research could be a direct comparison of these "low level/general" tools to "higher level/specialized" sources/resources. Compare the quality of the information using both methods.

 

I agree with most things said here, however Google and Wikipedia are great sources... to start with. One might provide insight to another point of view, another idea about a topic that one has yet to consider, but farther research should always be done. Likewise, as with any source, ideas should be taken with a grain of salt, context should be considered, and hopefully, the ideas should be able to be backed up in another source.

I'm going through college right now, I constantly grade higher than my classmates? Why? I bust my arse doing papers: researching, organizing, writing, re-writing. Proper grammar is sparse these days and it drives me nuts looking at my peers and their lack of writing skills.

 

You didn't read my question. I didn't ask about the difference between two different sources (which doesn't really require an answer, does it?).

 

As an actual professor I agree that Google and Wikipedia can be fine sources of information. The problem is that too many students simply google something and write up whatever the search gives them. Students are not learning how to read and judge sources. They are often as likely to quote a hoax or charlatan as they are to quote a leading researcher. Students need to spend time in the library to understand what real information is, and to learn to evaluate the quality of information before them.