on Wikipedia

[seventhe]

So the lab report I just completed was like an introduction to polymeric manipulation and finishing methods. It was a lot more qualitative than the other lab reports - we watched demonstrations and did small experiments, and we had to answer questions rather than produce analysis and calculations.

For a lot of the questions asked, we weren't given the material to answer them in class (big surprise) and thus had to look them up. And I won't lie: out of my 20 or so citations in this report, probably 12 of them are different Wikipedia pages.

It makes me feel very funny. I'm from an age where I grew up not having the internet at my fingertips for answers -- and even when I was in university, citing a website was a fringe-y sort of no-no, or "not unless you have to" type thing. (Yup: surprise, Dear Readers, I am old.)

Now, on this report, a lot of that is just not caring - I actually emailed the professor to ask where I could find some information I was having trouble googling, and her response was "Most, if not all, of the grad students here use Wikipedia. If you want better information you can try [books X and Y] in our science library." My first response was "Oh good, Wikipedia wasn't very informative"... and that was quickly followed by "Um, it's Monday; when the hell am I going to get to the science library to look this stuff up before Friday."

No wonder online sources - Wikipedia or others; I happen to love the Macrogalleria for polymer stuff; don't laugh, it's very informative - are so common nowadays. Who wants to trudge down to a library - or even into their (really messy) study and pile of used textbooks - and flip through pages of indexes and tables of contents and chapters to find the structure of cellulose acetate? When I can type it into Google and find it in seconds? And it counts -- they don't seem to care as long as you cite it properly, and I've got ACS format all over this guy. I am a citation and reference badass.

And it seems cool in a way, too, that there is so much information out there that can be easily found and I can spend 15 minutes reading up on birefringence and dichroism before I have to answer those sections -- and then I can move right on to poly(methyl methacrylate) without having to get up and find a totally different textbook.

It's just interesting to me, the concept that something like Wikipedia is ok as long as it's cited properly and labeled. I know some of you are librarian-types, so don't laugh at me for using Wikipedia, my prof totes said it was okay and I am a lazy lazy asshole.

Comments

[novel_machinist]

God I know the feeling. My professor is explaining his citations for our formal report. And he's like "Oh, Wiki is fine on the internets! :D"

I feel like that's cheating and I don't quite understand why since everyone wants me to use it. Conversely I'm probably the only person who is going to put effort into their lab report because my class is full of lazy/cocky people this round. (On a side note, how I am going to tie in the 6 labs that I've done thusfar into one report makes me die inside. This means I have no bloody CLUE how you are still alive and kicking because I think I'd be in the fetal position were I you).

I'm wondering what lab reports will be like in 10 years, dude.

[lassarina]

God it sort of terrifies me that Wikipedia is now a valid citation source. I mean, it's cool for when you just can't find it or can't get to the library, and probably for Real Science it's just fine, but I think of the wankery that could go on in history/social sciences type entries and my head spins around.

[astrangerenters.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to knock you on Wikipedia - it's gotten a lot better since we were in undergrad, so long as the pages you're using have decent citations to back them up. And I imagine that would be the case in the hard sciences.

Wikipedia's a place we route people to a lot here, so I can't really say anything bad about it. It's a very good starting point!!

And there's always scirus.com - it's supposed to be like a science-y Google, but I'm sure Google's infinitely easier to use? IDK :)

[first-seventhe.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I figure if a lab is just asking me for a definition - "What is a lacquer?" - Wikipedia works as well as anything. And you're right about the science article citations (I sometimes click through them and use those to help too XD), they are usually good enough that I feel it's legit. Come on, how many people are going through and changing the page for electrospinning.

[salarta.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'm younger than you (I think) and I still had to do the whole no websites unless you have to thing. Wikipedia was a definite "don't you dare" as well as a result of how easy it is for someone to come in and edit a page to fill it with lies.

That didn't stop me from using wikipedia to prepare for tests for several university courses, however. And I got my best grades on those ones.

However, on the subject of whether or not you can get to the library to check those books, are you sure you don't have access to electronic databases through your university library that might provide you with this information? And is there any way you can contact a reference librarian, by E-mail or instant messaging service or anything? Many times university libraries provide databases with access to journals and books that you can't read other than getting a physical copy.

And in saying that I don't mean to make it sound like you're a dunce at libraries. :P I'm just trying to help and assuming from the bottom. I'd check your university's site but I have to do work now.

[first-seventhe.livejournal.com]

Well, we have OhioLink, which is a book/journal sharing program uniting universities across Ohio. It actually had really good journal access (people from work ask me to get them articles; I will cry when I graduate and lose it, I really will). But it doesn't appear to have electronic access to books, just to journals. I could order the book from there but I'd still have to go to the library to read it.

[salarta.livejournal.com]

DEAR SEV.

This is the closest I can find: http://www.uakron.edu/libraries/bierce_scitech/research_tools/research_tools_listing.dot?ctg=155189 . Your university library is balls about being able to follow a direct link to search results though, so you'll have to click "Polymer Engineering" under the Subjects drop-down to see Knovel.

There's a possibility that you have more resources at your disposal than Knovel, for instance some libraries have access to things like ebrary and Books 24x7 that would give them access to whole books. One library I've used only showed such access by searching for the book in the catalog, which I did really quickly and found some books where you'd be able to get full-text by clicking the "Go" button. :)

Speaking of, you can very quickly try netlibrary: https://www.uakron.edu/libraries/bierce_scitech/research_tools/research_tools_listing.dot?keywords=netlibrary&imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0 . It says it has online books "on many subjects." The problem, though, is that you can only access netlibrary after creating an account for it while on campus. It doesn't help you much right now, but maybe it'll help you later.

Oh, one last one you can try that I found: https://www.uakron.edu/libraries/bierce_scitech/research_tools/research_tools_detail.dot?id=1725103

Now then, back to doing my actual work for me. :) No problem if you don't want to try them out, and if you do then I hope they help you get things done!

[owlmoose.livejournal.com]

Another librarian who sometimes directs students to Wikipedia here, although I'm a little surprised that your prof lets you cite it as a source. My standard line is that Wikipedia is a great place to get a basic overview of the subject and for the "bibliography" in the references section -- and then those are the works you cite. Then again, it might be different in the sciences; most of my students aren't looking for hard scientific definitions, and I've long had the impression that's one of Wikipedia's strengths.

I agree that Wikipedia is a lot better than it used to be, even three or four years ago. More eyes on it, more controls against factual errors slipping into the system.

[katmillia.livejournal.com]

I still use Wikipedia, but more as a "look at the sources used for the articles and get your own information from THOSE links" type of thing. Because I am still not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source in any of my grad level research. Evil professors. ;)

[albijuli]

In college I actually preferred going through physical books, magazines, and periodicals for information. If I Googled/etc something I'd print it out and take a highlighter to it. There's something about thumbing through physical data for me.

[salarta.livejournal.com]

This is just my pondering, but I would guess it's a matter of the physical, tangible object operating as a psychological hook that helps establish that information in your mind better. Sort of like the basis for the suggestion people make of trying to study for an exam in the same room or type of room where you'd be taking the exam. More hooks due to environment.

[albijuli]

Ponder adventure! That's probably it. XD