I completely agree with this. I've seen that study and it is good, Britannica's counterclaim was rather empty for me.
I had my students do an analysis of Wikipedia articles related to I/O Psychology and they found few things to criticize in the relevant Wikipedia articles based on comparison to their textbook on the same topics and other credible independent sources. Paul On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:30 AM, sbl...@ubishops.ca wrote: > We're big boys and girls. We all understand the need for > caution, whatever the secondary source. Singling Wikipedia out > has a whiff of condescension about it, the hint that I know better, > but you need a reminder. If one really felt that the information > provided is so untrustworthy as to require a repeated warning, > then why is it being cited at all? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1214 or send a blank email to leave-1214-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
