Where results make sense

About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   PR   |   Contact us

Topic: Wikipedia:Cite sources

    Note: these results are not from the primary (high quality) database.

MediaWiki 1.4.5 - Wikipedia @ Must-Have-Software.net When editing wikipedia pages you are asked to cite your sources, and you can choose to practice first by going to the Sandbox. One thought is: who is to keep you from putting all your facts and opinions on a website that you create and then you cite your website as your source. Others, since they did not see any link asking them if this was their first time editing a page, will just bludgeon through, and, at least momentarily lower the quality of a wikipedia page. www.must-have-software.net /freeware.php?id=213   (995 words)

GreenKri » Wikimania 2005 I was taught throughout college to use reputable sources that you are able to cite. They have teams of editors that look over changes and delete them if the info is not cited or not verifiable - some sources, like personal experience, can’t really be cited, for instance. As a high school teacher this won’t be a huge problem, but I’ll be training most of my students to go to college when they leave school. www.greenkri.com /?p=534   (995 words)

Esperanto Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article or section does not cite its references or sources. It also incorporates with permission the content of the 1933 Enciklopedio de Esperanto. en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Esperanto_Wikipedia   (216 words)

apophenia: Academia and Wikipedia That is, aside from the lack of editors and fact-checker research staff, you simply can't cite to a wikipedia article and be assured that it won't change tomorrow and say something different. Posted by: joe at January 4, 2005 11:00 AM My biggest problem with wikipedia is not that it is not that it for the most part lacks a sanctified peer review. Posted by: Thad at January 4, 2005 06:48 AM There's also something to be said for the static nature of encylclopedia-like sources (in addition to the fact that they have editors, which tends to be more of a blessing, I'm sure, than a liability). www.zephoria.org /thoughts/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.html   (2597 words)

Many-to-Many: situating Wikipedia Like Clay, i firmly believe that students should cite their sources; nothing is more gut-wrenching than throwing a line of someone’s paper into Google and finding it on the web. The article that BoingBoing cites tells us explicitly that it is ‘scholars’ that have such authority. This is not because i want students using the encyclopedia - they’re far more likely to read the 10 page essay than hike up the hill to the library to find an encyclopedia that may or may not give them a clue about what’s going on. www.corante.com /many/archives/2005/03/06/situating_wikipedia.php   (2597 words)

Who's afraid of Wikipedia?. Many-to-Many: There are articles, as danah has pointed out, where it would be far better to go to the primary sources, but that would be as true were a student to cite any encyclopedia. It is due to the massively decentralised nature of wikipedia that we don't and wouldn't want to ensure that all articles are of similar quality, though we do have a system to mark that an article has surpassed a certain threshold (featuring). So judge the article, not the source (as ought to be common sense to any serious academic). www.corante.com /many/archives/2005/02/28/whos_afraid_of_wikipedia.php   (1331 words)

Theopedia:Writing guide - Theopedia As much as possible, contributers must cite their sources and respect the copyright of scholars. Furthermore, links to wikipedia from theopedia are easy, any wiki link that starts with wikipedia: will link to the wikipedia article on the topic. www.theopedia.com /Writing_guide   (1331 words)

apophenia: Academia and Wikipedia That is, aside from the lack of editors and fact-checker research staff, you simply can't cite to a wikipedia article and be assured that it won't change tomorrow and say something different. Posted by: joe at January 4, 2005 11:00 AM My biggest problem with wikipedia is not that it is not that it for the most part lacks a sanctified peer review. Posted by: Thad at January 4, 2005 06:48 AM There's also something to be said for the static nature of encylclopedia-like sources (in addition to the fact that they have editors, which tends to be more of a blessing, I'm sure, than a liability). www.zephoria.org /thoughts/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.html   (2597 words)

Search: Secondary - Info.co.uk Cite Works, Citing Sources (based on MLA style) Click here to begin Citation Maker... dpxml.infospace.com /infocom.uk/results?otmpl=dog/webresults.htm&qkw=Secondary&CMP=KNC-3LS480536328&infoad=1   (2597 words)

Science Fair Projects - MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning Please cite your sources so others can check your work. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. www.all-science-fair-projects.com /science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning   (2597 words)

Who's afraid of Wikipedia?. Many-to-Many: There are articles, as danah has pointed out, where it would be far better to go to the primary sources, but that would be as true were a student to cite any encyclopedia. It is due to the massively decentralised nature of wikipedia that we don't and wouldn't want to ensure that all articles are of similar quality, though we do have a system to mark that an article has surpassed a certain threshold (featuring). My guess is, whatever the topic, when there are passionate "fans" engaged in documenting their passion, you'll get "citation-worthy" content. many.corante.com /archives/2005/02/28/whos_afraid_of_wikipedia.php   (1264 words)

Cite Sources - Military History Wiki The disputed material should generally be moved to the article's talk page, to give an opportunity for editors to identify sources for the material. On the other hand, it is often preferable to have a few general references to authoritative overviews of a subject, such as textbooks and review articles, rather than a large number of specific citations for individual facts. Picking a single person or group as representative of a larger school of thought is fine, as long as they really are representative (you may want to pick more than one source). www.militaryhistorywiki.org /wiki/Cite_Sources   (3560 words)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Neutral_point_of_view   (5373 words)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view   (5377 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   Press   |   Contact us   Copyright © 2005-2007 www.factbites.com Usage implies agreement with terms.