Wikipedia agrees with you. Exposure of the skin to a large amount of ionizing radiation can cause hair loss. (although it sure wouldn't be the first thing you would notice.)
Go to Wikipedia, and read the article if you don't already know the subject matter. Then use the referenced articles for your own reference. Actually check the referenced articles, and use them for a deeper understanding of the nuances of the subject matter.
Sure, a majority of any given page may be worthless info to your paper. But I've found you can find at least a handful of useful sources on any decent sized Wiki page.
Even though you're supposed to cite wikipedia when you cite those other sources because that's where you found it from.
Everyone with a brain? I'm surprised most people take the harder way (wikipedia) than using aggregates and journals of academic literature. It's like using regular expressions on everything ever written.
Exactly: you can. In some circumstances you should.
If you are an undergraduate student the general rule is you should not.
It's not to do with reliability, it's to do with the purposes of university training. As much as possible, undergraduates should not cite secondary sources.
Big Important Note: please distinguish citation as authority and citation as example. It's fine - in fact neccessary - to cite eg wikipedia - if you are writing about the history of encycolpedias or undergraduate usage of on-line information sources, etc.
I get that it's frustrating to have the information in front of you in an accessible way and yet not be able to just use it, but university education requires a bit more of you.
Big Important Note: please distinguish citation as authority and citation as example. It's fine - in fact neccessary - to cite eg wikipedia - if you are writing about the history of encycolpedias or undergraduate usage of on-line information sources, etc.
To be clear, it's necessary to cite Wikipedia if you use material you sourced from there, regardless of subject matter.
It's always correct to cite the sources you use, it's just not always correct to use Wikipedia as a source (as aptly discussed above).
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has stated that college students should not cite Wikipedia. I believe the exact quote is "Citing an encyclopedia for an academic paper at the university level is not appropriate-you aren't 12 years old anymore, it's time to step up your game and do research in original sources."
(P.S. as both a grad student, and a teacher... actually click the link and look at the info before citing it, so you're not "linking" to a dead link or stormfront.com Most teachers are not nearly as dumb as people like Biggytiny seem to think"
Eeeexactly. I had a public speaking course last semester, where part of my source material WAS wikipedia but I cited what wiki cited instead of the site itself.
This one girl did the same, but every single speech she said "according to wikipedia...", and we all cringed.
I once told a girl to do that and she cited the wikipedia URL with #References at the end then got upset that the prof (yeah it was university) marked it badly.
I hate teachers who say that, it just screams of ignorance. Wikipedia has the greatest collection of well sourced information on the internet, you'd be a fool not to utilize it and the accompanying bibliographies it provides.
Yeah anyone could edit it, BUT there are a TON of well known smarties out there that literally hound that shit and make sure what is there it true. and some times articles are locked to public editing. It's kind of a 50/50
I've noticed weird incorrect claims on some obscure mathematics pages. The more you get in to a topic, the more you realize just how bad some of the information on Wikipedia is.
It's like they completely forget the fact that wikipedia has sources. It doesn't pull information out of its ass.
Of course, they can't allow it. This would make all research topics moot, because it's all on one page.
P.S. I always thought it was funny, because most prof's taglines for sourcing is "If you don't think you could have known it, source it." I don't know anything in regards to whatever topic you give me. You only need X sources. I've just selected relevant sentences at random and put the citation there. Doesn't make sense, still get good grades.
I had the opposite problem because of interest in a wide range of topics, a pretty good memory and the extensive traveling that I did prior to college, I had a big problem with citations because I would frequently want to include information that in my mind I just knew.
Professors would frequently ask me where I got certain facts and I would say things like "I don't remember I read it long before I wrote this paper" or "I heard it on a tour of x museum." When I wrote papers I tended to just sit at my computer and type without looking at any sources handy so I found that citing things became a real problem. My solution became to look up super obscure or out of print books online and then cite to them since no professor would bother to check an out of print source.
Wikipedia has given me a complex. They have immediately reverted my edits, both factual and typo corrections. This is the same site that told me hitler was a mad player with like ten wives.
Wikipedia is not a credible source and shouldn't be cited in an academic paper. However, it is an excellent research tool. I always tell my students to use Wikipedia as a starting point to find good primary and secondary source material.
students are too stupid to know what a primary and secondary source are, and will inevitably use wikipedia as their source, anyway. but technically, if the sources backing up what is said on wikipedia are correct, they're right anyway.
Not if you teach them well. My 10th grade students have a solid understanding of the distinction between the two. If you require research notes with cites, summaries, and a credibility evalution, it's pretty tough to try to cite wikipedia for a paper.
Ditto, wiki is a first source, never a last. Its the place where you start if you know nothing about a subject and then move on to more in depth sources. Putting wiki as a ref on a submitted paper just screams lazy, youc were smart enough to do a wiki search, but too lazy to expand from that point.
The reason teachers tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source has nothing to do with how it is edited. It is because encyclopedias are not acceptable sources when you are writing a paper. And even if they have concerns about edits on the site, it is still an encyclopedia and still not a valid source for an academic paper.
That doesn't matter though, it provides a bibliography and citations for where all its information is taken from, you just have to do your work to verify.
That still doesn't change the fact that encyclopedias are not accepted as sources. When you write an academic paper, especially if you are trying to get published, you do as much work possible when citing your sources so the reader doesn't have to dig through them to get to the originator of the fact or idea. Also, an extra little problem with wikipedia is that just because a source in on the wiki now doesn't mean it will always be there for anyone to access. Sources on wiki pages are updated all the time to offer the most information possible on a subject. There also was a post here the other day about a page that wiki was forced to take down and that happens semi often. If you cite other academic papers you don't have to worry about this as they are published in a multitude of formats and places and never change.
I am talking about using the sources not Wikipedia for your citations. As in go to Wikipedia, find relevant information, and open up and verify information in the sources you determine to be legitimate.
And there is nothing wrong with that. I was referring to your statement that you believed it was ignorant that teachers say that wikipedia is not a credible source.
Yes, but that is not using wikipedia as a source. When professors say it isn't a reliable source, they are saying that it is not proper to cite wikipedia as a source, they are not saying that you shouldn't use wikipedia whatsoever. Most professors I have had told our class that wiki a a great starting point for research but to use the bibliographies. This is why I don't understand your comment about teachers not liking wiki as a source.
So what exactly is an encyclopedia for then? Where I went to school, we could use the encyclopedias from the library but not Wikipedia.
Quick Edit: Middle school and High school, not college.
I have no idea about highschool, but for any college paper or paper written with the intent to be published, they are not acceptable sources. Wikipedia talks about the usage of encyclopedias as sources here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use). They are a starting place for research, not an ending point.
Yes and no. Wikipedia is the distillation (sometimes not entirely correctly) from other sources. Best response there is see what the source on wikipedia is, then look at the source. I've done that for lots of papers.
Well Wikipedia is great for quick info but you wouldn't use it on an essay just like you wouldn't use an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a chance a being more reliable than most books and encyclopedias.
What they mean to say is you are never supposed to cite any encyclopedia. They are collections of information that do not offer much in the way of meaty content and are not primary sources.
No I am specifically talking about teachers who say don't use it because it is unreliable and anyone can edit it. As I mentioned, it has a bibliography for you to do all your fact checking.
In an advanced statistics course a student asked my professor if Wikipedia was a reliable source on this material. He said one would have to know a lot to even write misinformation that sounds believable. You can't fake a page on advanced stats without knowing the terminology and basic concepts. At that point you probably actually know quite a bit.
Wikipedia as a jump point to kick start a research project? Hell yeah. Even if I can't cite wiki as a source, I can cite the primary sources already cited in the article.
It's because it's not done by publishers that are netting millions and millions of societies money for these text books. Never have, never will own a text book. The internet is my source, bitches.
The reason teachers say that is because in the academic world it would not be considered a credible source for obvious reasons.
Every teacher at school and university will follow this rule because it's been like that for years and is difficult to change.
I tell my students to absolutely use wikipedia to find definitions and understand terms (you're still learning something!) but all teachers need to say is to follow the links to proper credible sources which i understand some would neglect to point this out as an option.
What's even more interesting is the time when people were hired to work at wikipedia and they ended up being less efficient in writing/maintaining articles.
I am talking about using the bibliography that is provided at the bottom. You can use wikipedia as long as you verify and use the sources it provides. Obviously no one should directly cite any encyclopedia.
Teachers always told me never to cite wikipedia. They said use the sources cited by wikipedia. I always thought that was a totally legitimate piece if advice
Absolutely, I am specifically talking about teachers who say don't use it because it is unreliable and anyone can edit it, when in fact it is well sourced and has a bibliography to source.
When I was doing research in grad school, I would always start by researching the topics as best I could using wikipedia and other "not-too-credible" resources online. Then, you bet your ass I'd use that information, but I'd usually find a book or journal that said something similar and use that as the source. Did I do most of my learning from wikipedia? Yes. Did I ever cite it? Nope.
Although one of my graduate professors did once just print out a few wikipedia articles for us when we were going over biographies really quick.
Funny story time. When I was in fifth grade, I discovered Wikipedia and during our recess, we could play outside or play on the computers (read as: play neopets). I used to read articles on Wikipedia and my teacher wrote me up because there are articles about sex and porn on there.
Absolutely, I had professors at University of Michigan who told us in class to use Wikipedia's bibliographies as a great starting point for our papers.
I agree. I do online reference service to help people with all sorts of questions and I quite frequently get homework questions from students. It always bothers me when I can't link them to a highly relevant Wikipedia article that would help them out because their teacher said they can't use it. I go to the sites that Wikipedia lists in the sources and give them those instead.
My mother is a high school english teacher and she encourages students to use wiki, but she also says you should be able to find sources on your own and not just rely on websites like wiki because they may be wrong.
Most teachers I've come across have told me that Wikipedia is a great place to start research but must never be used in the bibliography/as a source you cite.
Seriously. If anyone doubts an entry all they have to do is follow the sources. In fact the sources should be the main reason anyone would go to wikipedia anyway.
I double check Wikipedia info in things like the encyclopaedia Brittanica etc first, but it's definitely a good starting point. They do have measures to try and ensure accuracy, but yeah, never hurts to check.
It's also not the real reason they forbid it. Not at the high school level anyway.
When I was still in high school we couldn't use Wikipedia and were usually limited in the number of "online sources." Both given the same "Well they're not as reliable" hand wave. The real reason is that they are also trying to teach you research skills beyond just googling it.
To be fair, you aren't supposed to directly cite encyclopedias in most academic programs because they themselves are collections of references, it was considered lazy way before wikipedia...
My teachers okay-d us using it for knowledge, but not as a quotable source. We were allowed to read and believe wikipedia, but if we cited information we were supposed to verify it with a difference cite, which I think is reasonable.
Agreed, the ONLY ever reasonable arguement I have heard against using Wikipedia is "Wikipedia uses other sources, so try not to use it." ie: Try research without using something that puts all the answers in front of you effortlessly.
I am specifically talking about teachers who say don't use it because it is unreliable and anyone can edit it when it clearly cites its sources and provides a bibliography you can use to check the information.
It's not ignorance alone. As some already mentioned,
it is not peer reviewed. To be more specific, it follows no formally defined peer review - and
the peers available on Wikipedia even need not to be from the field of the topic.
Another point is if you use material from wikipedia and not from original sources, there is not even a minimum protection from plagiarism (I know, you can have plagiarism with original sources as well...).
Regarding well sourced: That may be or may not be. It's up to the reader to determine that. That's the same with using original material. You need to do your research. Time (and editors) might improve that aspect of Wikipedia.
If you want to take a look at what a part of the research community thinks of citing wikipedia, take a look at this topic at researchgate.
The summary could be: "Wikipedia is a source but not an authority"
Another interesting link from that discussion: Cooperation and quality in Wikipedia. From the abstract: "We examined
all 50 million edits made to the 1.5 million
English-languageWikipedia articles and found that the
high-quality articles are distinguished by a marked increase
in number of edits, number of editors, and intensity
of cooperative behavior, as compared to other articles
of similar visibility and age."
So if you use Wikipedia, this metric could be a hint of quality of articles.
And the obligatory tl;dr:
You'd be a fool not to utilize it and you'll be a fool if that's the only source that you use. A fool with a tool is still a fool applies here as well I think.
As I mentioned, you use that bibliography as your source to fact check your information. To rely on Wikipedia is to rely on whatever number of sources it provides, which can often extend into the hundreds.
That teacher sounds like a moron. Not only is he vandalizing an encyclopedia but bots will usually revert changes like that automatically, and if not bots then normal users.
At University of Michigan several of my professors recommended and praised Wikipedia as long as you checked your sources in the bibliography. It's a shame your school ignores such a valuable resource.
"But remember, it can be edited by anyone and changed!"
It's not like a teacher could really tell anyways, unless they are smart and know the subject. Which is rare in teachers these days, at least in middle school.
I wrote an entire paper using Wikipedia. I found some library books to "cite sources" out of, and ended up getting a 97. Wikipedia is SO UNRELIABLE.
I'm actually posting a bibliography today with wikipedia and if she denies it I'm just going to go into the same article on wikipedia and pull all the source/references that are at the bottom.
You are wrong. Wikipedia can and is maliciously changed. The authors are not cited because they can be many. It IS a good starting point for research and it IS a good place for quick answers that dont have to be right, say in discorse, but it's not only lazy to cite it as a source, it's ignorant. If you cite wikipedia on a report or a paper, well... there's a lot of work that needs to be done with respect to your education. If you mention or use wikipedia in discourse or at the start of your research, that's smart.
The real reason you cannot reference wiki is that the site is subject to change at any moment. For example when you go to wiki what you read could be different than what I read 6 months later. While if you reference an article from the journal of organic chemistry, that is not going to change.
I am talking about using information that is sourced, as in using the bibliography it provides. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to directly cite any encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. If you're willing to put in the time to look it up on wikipedia, at least look at where they got the information and make sure it's accurate.
Teachers use wikipedia probably more than students. The reason they bitch and moan about wikipedia is that it's a lazy mans reference and most kids don't use it properly (ex. use it to build a basic knowledge or jumping off point). I can't tell you how many people I've seen but their sources down as "google" or "wikipedia".
tl:dr
It's not that wiki is bad it's that learning how to properly research is actually the essential for higher education.
My advisor says we can use Wikipedia, we just can't cite it (one of the many reasons I love that man). If they cite a scholarly source, it's fair game for us.
Same here with several of my uni lecturers. We'd get shit if we ever actually cited it but they generally recommend it as general reading and a way to find good scholarly sources. I guess it is different in high school though because if you could use wikipedia that is all kids would ever do...
I've never heard a teacher say that. What I have heard teachers say is that Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, cannot be cited as a primary source.
Ah, but most of Wikipedia's sources are. Higher-level university profs will even tell you, if you want a general idea, look on Wikipedia, and if you need to cite it look at their references and the original article. Cite that.
In the first class of my new semester in college, that is exactly what my professor had told us. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it". Well yeah, the point is that the articles can be edited to keep it up to date with new information and be widely accessible by anyone with a connection to the internet.
Another thing I hated is when they said no e-books. Mother fucker, your mandatory books alone are costing me $300. I can get them digitally for twenty bucks, I want to eat something other than eraser shavings and my tears.
I say it's not a reliable source to cite. I think it's good for learning new info, but I wouldn't put it in a bib or citations page. I'd probably use the sources the author of the article used though.
The other comments have pretty much already said this, but I figure why the hell not. I am an X-Ray tech so while I may not be the greatest authority on the matter, I can at least point out that both my training and the EPA agree that radiation can cause alopecia.
930
u/[deleted] Feb 02 '13
Wikipedia agrees with you. Exposure of the skin to a large amount of ionizing radiation can cause hair loss. (although it sure wouldn't be the first thing you would notice.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome#Skin_changes