on Wikipedia

[first_seventhe]

So the lab report I just completed was like an introduction to polymeric manipulation and finishing methods. It was a lot more qualitative than the other lab reports - we watched demonstrations and did small experiments, and we had to answer questions rather than produce analysis and calculations

Comments

[astrangerenters]

I'm not going to knock you on Wikipedia - it's gotten a lot better since we were in undergrad, so long as the pages you're using have decent citations to back them up. And I imagine that would be the case in the hard sciences.

Wikipedia's a place we route people to a lot here, so I can't really say anything bad about it. It's a very good starting point!!

And there's always scirus.com - it's supposed to be like a science-y Google, but I'm sure Google's infinitely easier to use? IDK :)

[first_seventhe]

Yeah, I figure if a lab is just asking me for a definition - "What is a lacquer?" - Wikipedia works as well as anything. And you're right about the science article citations (I sometimes click through them and use those to help too XD), they are usually good enough that I feel it's legit. Come on, how many people are going through and changing the page for electrospinning.

[salarta]

Hey, I'm younger than you (I think) and I still had to do the whole no websites unless you have to thing. Wikipedia was a definite "don't you dare" as well as a result of how easy it is for someone to come in and edit a page to fill it with lies

[first_seventhe]

Well, we have OhioLink, which is a book/journal sharing program uniting universities across Ohio. It actually had really good journal access (people from work ask me to get them articles; I will cry when I graduate and lose it, I really will). But it doesn't appear to have electronic access to books, just to journals. I could order the book from there but I'd still have to go to the library to read it.

[salarta]

DEAR SEV

[owlmoose]

Another librarian who sometimes directs students to Wikipedia here, although I'm a little surprised that your prof lets you cite it as a source. My standard line is that Wikipedia is a great place to get a basic overview of the subject and for the "bibliography" in the references section -- and then those are the works you cite. Then again, it might be different in the sciences; most of my students aren't looking for hard scientific definitions, and I've long had the impression that's one of Wikipedia's strengths.

I agree that Wikipedia is a lot better than it used to be, even three or four years ago. More eyes on it, more controls against factual errors slipping into the system.

[katmillia]

I still use Wikipedia, but more as a "look at the sources used for the articles and get your own information from THOSE links" type of thing. Because I am still not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source in any of my grad level research. Evil professors. ;)

[albijuli]

In college I actually preferred going through physical books, magazines, and periodicals for information. If I Googled/etc something I'd print it out and take a highlighter to it. There's something about thumbing through physical data for me.

[salarta]

This is just my pondering, but I would guess it's a matter of the physical, tangible object operating as a psychological hook that helps establish that information in your mind better. Sort of like the basis for the suggestion people make of trying to study for an exam in the same room or type of room where you'd be taking the exam. More hooks due to environment.

[albijuli]

Ponder adventure! That's probably it. XD