Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnsonsbaby said:
Wiki is considered a good 'starting point' for research but because of it's crowd sourcing nature, isn't a reliable source to quote and should never be quoted. However, if the information you're looking for, such as Sisu's 'Groupthink', has footnotes to robust references [and it does] then for our purposes on here, it's about as legitimate as you can get. For uni essays, research etc. then you would quote the references from the footnotes. Wiki does the work for you in terms of things like Groupthink by putting together most of the information you require on the subject using an array of references.

And no a quote or link to wiki wouldn't be accepted on an academic paper but universities are starting to see that a lot of wiki entries are well researched with extensive citations. Some US colleges are working with wiki editors to clean up entries because of students growing reliance on wiki as a first port of call.
Click to expand...

And that will be the reason for the fall in educational standards, what has happened to spending hours online reading and researching published papers and looking though books?

Wiki can be used, however if it is using well referenced work why not quote the original and not the wiki link?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes The Grinch
PJS - BACK AND BOSSING IT said:
And that will be the reason for the fall in educational standards, what has happened to spending hours online reading and researching published papers and looking though books?

Wiki can be used, however if it is using well referenced work why not quote the original and not the wiki link?
Click to expand...
The original will be quoted! Students are notoriously lazy. Wiki does the work for them as I said, by collecting and collating references, sources and citations all in one place. Of course it all depends on the subject matter you're looking for. If you're reading engineering like you [and my son] did, you will have little use for wiki. If you're reading an art, a wiki page can point you in the right direction. Lecturers have gone from banning it's use to realising that students are going to go to wiki and instead of a ban are teaching students how best to use Wikipedia. Don't believe anything on there unless there's a good reference.

You made fun of Sisu quoting it on Groupthink and looking at that particular one, I'd say it was exemplary in what a good wiki page looks like!
 
johnsonsbaby said:
The original will be quoted! Students are notoriously lazy. Wiki does the work for them as I said, by collecting and collating references, sources and citations all in one place. Of course it all depends on the subject matter you're looking for. If you're reading engineering like you [and my son] did, you will have little use for wiki. If you're reading an art, a wiki page can point you in the right direction. Lecturers have gone from banning it's use to realising that students are going to go to wiki and instead of a ban are teaching students how best to use Wikipedia. Don't believe anything on there unless there's a good reference.

You made fun of Sisu quoting it on Groupthink and looking at that particular one, I'd say it was exemplary in what a good wiki page looks like!
Click to expand...
Wiki does have its uses, on stuff that is not open to interpretation. Established laws of physics and empirical data as well as what you mentioned above.

Wiki cannpt be used as any sort of proof of anything in any theoritical debate. Any use of it requires a citation of credible sources for cross referencing purposes.


But I suspect some bitter blueshit is criticising my use of a wiki link, the same guy that tried ot use fox news as a source. <whistle>

meh, you post sources, and get replies like [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG] or [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG].
Emotion has little use in such discussions as climate change and solar physics
 
Sisu said:
Wiki does have its uses, on stuff that is not open to interpretation. Established laws of physics and empirical data as well as what you mentioned above.

Wiki cannpt be used as any sort of proof of anything in any theoritical debate. Any use of it requires a citation of credible sources for cross referencing purposes.


But I suspect some bitter blueshit is criticising my use of a wiki link, the same guy that tried ot use fox news as a source. <whistle>

meh, you post sources, and get replies like [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG] or [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG].
Emotion has little use in such discussions as climate change and solar physics
Click to expand...
Agreed <ok>

I use wiki all the time, it's very useful and been my 'go to' on many occasions but as I said earlier, because it's crowd sourced it's unreliable, There's a huge difference between citing it on a college paper and on a footie forum though <laugh>
 
johnsonsbaby said:
Agreed <ok>

I use wiki all the time, it's very useful and been my 'go to' on many occasions but as I said earlier, because it's crowd sourced it's unreliable, There's a huge difference between citing it on a college paper and on a footie forum though <laugh>
Click to expand...

depends on the subject, I used Wiki to show that Rafa was not a journeyman as someone wrongly claimed. After they moved the goal posts 3 times after being proven wrong with the wiki, the reply I got was "I win" "another victory for Tobes" <laugh>

So even factual links from wiki or anywhere else are not enough to convince idiots.
You can't fix stupid
 
Sisu said:
depends on the subject, I used Wiki to show that Rafa was not a journeyman as someone wrongly claimed. After they moved the goal posts 3 times after being proven wrong with the wiki, the reply I got was "I win" "another victory for Tobes" <laugh>

So even factual links from wiki or anywhere else are not enough to convince idiots.
You can't fix stupid
Click to expand...
Goal posts get moved a lot with some people <ok>

What did a famous man [well Forest Gump] once say 'stupid is, as stupid does' <laugh>
 
Sisu you haven't got a ****ing clue <ok>

Coronal holes are nothing to do with convection, where did you get that idea from? They are regions of open magnetic field lines and lower plasma density, hence their appearance in EUV images. Please also explain again the connection between EUV images and limb darkening. Oh right, you can't it's just BS you made up.

"there is a lack of emission in most spectrums of visibility" In English please.

When it suits you you use observations by scientists to support your wild and uneducated speculation, then the next paragraph you'll turn round and claim "they have no clue about..." and therefore your unfounded nonsense is somehow equivalent to genuine research.

You still get your information from a known [HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG] because just like the Nature ice thickness article you will copy and paste things that support your agenda without any knowledge of the science or even reading the sources themselves.

You have been [HASHTAG]#exposed[/HASHTAG] as a liar and this is why you cannot discuss a topic for more than one sentence. You don't have a clue so you copy and paste as much nonsense as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes The Grinch
Sisu said:
But I suspect some bitter blueshit is criticising my use of a wiki link, the same guy that tried ot use fox news as a source. <whistle>

meh, you post sources, and get replies like [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG] or [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG].
Emotion has little use in such discussions as climate change and solar physics
Click to expand...

When you log out and then back in again, you'll see that I've not even mentioned you or your wiki links.

As usual you're contradicting yourself again though I see, as you've posted your own wiki links and then called the site a disaster within a couple of pages. You've then proclaimed that it's only of use when dealing in certainties, despite having posted reams of unproven theory in your latest attempt to back up your current hobby horse anti mainstream thinking theory.

You're a walking contradiction man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peej
Sisu said:
depends on the subject, I used Wiki to show that Rafa was not a journeyman as someone wrongly claimed. After they moved the goal posts 3 times after being proven wrong with the wiki, the reply I got was "I win" "another victory for Tobes" <laugh>

So even factual links from wiki or anywhere else are not enough to convince idiots.
You can't fix stupid
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, the Rafa isn't a journeyman debate, when you threw a wobbly and said I should be banned as I'd got the better of you (again) I remember that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peej
[Lets not also forget that the link....now opened was to be critical of others who had opposing opinions<ok>

Not only an expert in magnetic links but psychology too
 
johnsonsbaby said:
Agreed <ok>

I use wiki all the time, it's very useful and been my 'go to' on many occasions but as I said earlier, because it's crowd sourced it's unreliable, There's a huge difference between citing it on a college paper and on a footie forum though <laugh>
Click to expand...

No difference, its rubbish whichever way you look at it and unreliable without the background research, so do that and don't be lazy, you are an academic and should set the example
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes The Grinch
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back