You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

12
1

[–] pewpewpewmoon 12 points 1 point (+13|-12) ago  (edited ago)

No. No it can't.

Not only have the sources of information themselves become increasingly questionable over the last couple of years, the term citogenisis came into popularity because of citations that refer back to wikipedia either directly or indirectly.

EDIT : Go down syndrome on me all you want, but it was painfully obvious who used wikipedia for their citations on research papers when I was a TA.

2
7

[–] tonycongo 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Yes, yes it can.

You're talking about a small percentage of the articles.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

4
1

[–] pewpewpewmoon 4 points 1 point (+5|-4) ago 

REAL tl;dr of my comment :

If you are having to use wiki as your starting point, you don't have enough working knowledge to spot subtle bullshit.

0
0

[–] Project2501 ago 

Eh, I was also a TA. Some topics you can grab the proper, historic articles, like for the fast fourier transform. I mean, this source in that article is referenced a good deal, and not because it was featured on wikipedia.

The skill is to do pretty much meta searches afterwards using the library journal systems, or google scholar, using citations, similar articles, tags. Everyone knew how to grab the one or two historic journal articles, and how to build up reading lists from highlighting common sources in recent papers. Then again, I have only had to deal with computer science/applied mathematics topics as a TA, so it certainly was a biased sample of undergrads, and topics. I also knew some TAs/masters students who were active in trying to keep some articles properly written, and sourced, as they knew wikipedia's role as a quick check after some topics covered that just didn't get enough time spent on in the lecture for undergrads.