Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Wikipedia is your friend.

That. But for those who lack Wikipedia somehow

Explain please how can you have access to an online gaming forum but not wikipedia

[dragdeler]

-

[Mephisto]

Maybe Wikipedia is a fnord to some people, I don't know.

[pisskop]

In highschool I was taught wikipedia was not a credible source.

it wss the devil, and some teachers took a grade point off for daring to even cite it.

[hector13]

That’s why you go to the references on Wikipedia and cite them instead.

[TamerVirus]

A fnord is a long, narrow, deep inlet of the sea between high cliffs, as in Norway and Iceland, typically formed by submergence of a glaciated valley.

DUH!

[Arx]

In highschool I was taught wikipedia was not a credible source.

it wss the devil, and some teachers took a grade point off for daring to even cite it.

It's usually reasonably credible, but not always, especially on divisive issues.

You definitely can't cite it, because it changes. The best you can do is a link and an access time, but that's still a bit jank because there's no guarantee that a future reader will be able to access it as it was at that time. The whole point of a citation is that someone reading whatever you wrote needs to be able to go "naaaah, that's a load of crock", check your reference, and either get rekt or transfer their grudge from you to the original purveyor of misinformation. Or some other reasonable motivation to look at your source material, like curiosity.

Anyway the point is that citing a Wikipedia page is like citing "The New York Times". What issue? Which article? By what author? The citation barely conveys any information. I'd be very tempted to dock points for citing Wikipedia, too. Hector's dead right: cite the same thing as Wikipedia cites. In fact, for a good explanation of why Wikipedia shouldn't be cited, read Wikipedia's citation guidelines.

[Rolan7]

Haha yeah, citing Wikipedia is literally citing "Somebody on the internet said".  In most cases it's citing "Somebody on the internet said X Journal said" - so yeah, you should just cite the journal.

It's a useful compilation of citations and usually-correct information, but it's inherently unreliable.

[pisskop]

Well, usually Wikipedia is good as a jumping off point.  By the time I was regularly expected to cite my work I had access to various databases I was expected to pull from.

Never had to do too much in the way of citing physical works, and even though my university had a 9 story library I only ever used it to have sex in tbh.  Kind of regrettable, but . . . internet.

[Egan_BW]

In the library? Isn't that noisy?

[pisskop]

I mean, nine floors and all the various 'quiet rooms', bathrooms, staircases, elevators, and utility rooms is a lot of rooms.

[scourge728]

As long as you don't involve the books in the intercourse....

[Kagus]

I mean, nine floors and all the various 'quiet rooms', bathrooms, staircases, elevators, and utility rooms is a lot of rooms.

No no no, he said story, not storey. It was a library with only 9 novels in it.

Very small library. Mostly just textbooks.

[Frumple]

As long as you don't involve the books in the intercourse....

Or rather, if you do, just go ahead and tear up some useless pages or something, say you accidentally damaged them, and pay for a replacement, rather than leave a surprise for the librarians to eventually deal with. Water damage and its equivalents are among the worst and hardest to deal with things that can happen to a book, so give appropriate reparations for anything you inflict on them. Please bibliofuck responsibly.

[TamerVirus]

My uni library had a 12 floor open atrium and a diving team!

... at least until they put up the big metal screens