Awww...well you guys can read this Audiogalaxy page instead. AG 4-EVER!!!1!

:eek: You should go there now!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

If I was still teaching I would not allow it in my class and do not use it on-line to make a point.

Hey that's a great point. I mean, the way you talked about making it...brilliant. What was it by the way?

I think Wikipedia is a wonderful general-purpose informational resource, and there's nothing wrong in students accessing it for background research. Just to say "you can't use it" is biting the nose to spite the face. Students need to understand the steps in research, understand the purpose behind background research, the difference between primary and secondary sources, and what makes sources authoritative.

Sure, use it as a stepping-off point, but they would not be able to use it as a source for their papers.
WTF?

You don't use it online to make a point, or you don't use it when making a point online?:confused:

Well...you said you "do not use it" to "make a point" . . . what was the point? I don't know what the point is, so you haven't made it. You haven't explained what the point is. Furthermore, nobody is keeping track of whether you, one individual man, is using or not using Wiki - so simply not using it doesn't "make" a point. If your not-using-it were to catch the attention of interested parties, they wouldn't have any way to know what your reasons were, so no "point" would be made in that case. The only possible way you could be making a "point" is by posting, here, about not using Wiki. But that, too, fails to "make a point" because you have neglected to tell us what the "point" is. So: what was the point?

For the record, I'm interested in what your point consists of, so please make one.

But I know everything already. :-)

I thought the point of Wikipedia is that all articles are peer reviewed. By everyone. Nearly everyday.

It's prof's discretion where I'm going to class and most allow it to be used once. Nothing wrong with using it to read through the original sources, either, since they're cited.

I hope you are making sense to yourself, I really do. I know you think this is some kind of argument and insult, it is not, it is just sad.

I only did it to make a point.

In the context of academic research, 'everyone' does not constitute peer review.

"The fibs that professor Alexander Halavais slipped in were deviously subtle: that abolitionist Frederick Douglass, lived in Syracuse, N.Y. for four years, and that the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under won an Oscar for film editing. Both are false, but would you have doubted these "factoids"?

Halavais hypothesized that the obscure errors would "languish online for some time," the Chronicle reported. Instead the Wikipedia volunteers eliminated all the fabrications within three hours of being posted."

He's just being a goof. It was kinda funny. No reflection on you though RK. :)