Is Wiki a good source of info for CMA?

[SPJ]

yes

or

no.

comments?

:D

[Shaolinlueb]

depends. most of the stuff i see is the same story i hear about the styles for origins. last time i checked which was about a year or so ago. i wish SAL would go in an edit all the history of the ones he knows. :(

[BoulderDawg]

Wiki is not a good source for anything.

[SimonM]

Wikipedia is generally as good as an encyclopedia.

That means going to it for general, basic, overviews is fine.

For anything academic it can provide a starting point by following it back to reference links and fishing for academic sources that way but should not be used as a source directly.

[Shaolinlueb]

Wiki is not a good source for anything.

well its good for telling me if something is glorified kick boxing or not.

[Lucas]

Wikipedia is generally as good as an encyclopedia.

That means going to it for general, basic, overviews is fine.

For anything academic it can provide a starting point by following it back to reference links and fishing for academic sources that way but should not be used as a source directly.

game, set, and match.

/end

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wikipedia is generally as good as an encyclopedia.

That means going to it for general, basic, overviews is fine.

For anything academic it can provide a starting point by following it back to reference links and fishing for academic sources that way but should not be used as a source directly.

Someone has Turkish oil checked the correct.

[Mr Punch]

Wiki is not a good source for anything.

There are some excellent articles on wiki, written by very qualified peer-reviewed experts in their fields. There are also some excellent debates by long-time very qualified peer-reviewed rivals.

Your statement is plain wrong. If you check the references you can usually work out for yourselves which are good and which aren't.

[SimonM]

Bingo.

And it's always good to check the references.

In the fish and vitamin b12 thread recently I found a wiki reference to the diets of australopithicus that reinforced one of my points. Made the mistake of quoting before reference checking.

Had to go back and edit my own post saying "then again the guy who published the article it referenced studied economics, not anthropology".

Of course that doesn't mean he's wrong. After all no anthropologist has gone and reverted the comment either.

But it wouldn't be useful for an essay.