Comments on: Wikipedia? No, Citizendium!

By: Mark Stone

Mark Stone — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:25:22 +0000

The answer to your problem with regards DNA is simple, and your answer is incorrect. Go to your University or College’s library and get the information from a book which will have been written and reviewed by experts.

Please note, I am not suggesting that electronic resources are unwarranted. Indeed an electronic copy of the book or journal from which you got this information would be fine (and most Universities and Colleges offer ebooks and electronic manuscripts). Indeed, remember that you should not be citing any encyclopedia … be it wikipedia or Britinnica!

By: busby seo challenge

busby seo challenge — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:42:16 +0000

nice research.. thanks for sharing this information

By: Karin Dalziel

Karin Dalziel — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:58:13 +0000

@danielb - Most universities at least have Encyclopaedia Britannica. I have studied at 5 colleges (eek) and all of them have had online access to electronic resources from off campus. I’m sure not all of them do, but it is fairly common. I am a distance student right now and access ALL of my school resources online. I don’t think any school should be offering distance classes if they don’t have the online resources to back up students who may never set foot on campus.

I totally agree that a variety of resources are needed, though! Citizendium is one more to add to a growing list of great online resources.

By: danielb

danielb — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:47:12 +0000

@Paulette - too true

@Karin - You are very lucky that the University you work for have access to such a wide array of encyclopaedias, however, I do not think this scenario represents the majority of academic establishments. Also, from my experience access to the online versions and for that matter the physical versions are only available “on campus”. Considering that mature students and distance learners can live 50 or so miles away they are not necessarily a viable option.

I agree that they should only be used as a starting point and this is why it is important to ensure that the information is correct from the start. Otherwise you may find that you have been led up the garden path by some half wit pretending to know what they are harping on about. A triangulation of research sources is required to ensure that what you are reading is legitimate information and not biased tosh.

I too am glad that a variety of options are coming in to the fore as Wikipedia is invariably flawed

@Chris Y - A strategy that I often employ.

About that DNA..Erythrocytes or red blood cells do not contain a nucleus and therefore do not contain any DNA. Considering that RBCs make up approximately 45% of blood volume and that the body contains approximately 10 pints of blood that makes up on average 7% of body weight, that is a lot of body material that does not contain DNA.

By: Chris Y.

Chris Y. — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:05:16 +0000

If you’re looking for a definitions just go to Google and search for “define: xyz” minus the quotation marks.

Using your DNA example, Google returned “The material inside the nucleus of cells that carries genetic information. The scientific name for DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid.”

By: Karin Dalziel

Karin Dalziel — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:56:18 +0000

Most schools subscribe to a variety of encyclopedias, either in print or online. For instance, the university I work at subscribes to American National Biography Online; Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology; Encyclopaedia Britannica Online; Encyclopedia of Genetics, Genomics, Proteomics, and Bioinformatics, and dozens more.

When I was doing my undergrad, after the 2nd year I was told to NEVER use an encyclopedia in a bibliography. They were a place to begin research, but not something to cite. As a grad student, we’re not told this, but it is pretty understood. I do occasionally quote Wikipedia to prove a point- for instance “Some people believe XYZ (Wikipedia) but the literature suggest the opposite is really true (Scholarly Journal Article.)” If I do cite wikipedia, I cite a timestamped entry rather than the article main page, since that can change.

I’m glad all these alternative sources are popping up- it’s great to have options! Google is going to start yet another project like this.

By: paulette

paulette — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:54:35 +0000

I agree with you that information shall be written in a correct manner so that the readers will gain knowledge from it. Info is useless if its innacurate.

By: danielb

danielb — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:05:43 +0000

@ Anne-Laure - Sounds very similar to the concept of Citizendium. I’m sure there will are numerous alternatives to Wikipedia each offering their own tailored concept.

Scholarpedia offers articles on a few select topics whereas Citizendium aims to cover every possible topic. Although the idea of expanding is mentioned on the home page. I particularly support the notion of invite only.

Thank you for sharing this.

By: Anne-Laure

Anne-Laure — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:58:05 +0000

Thank you for mentioning Citizendium.
I find that Scholarpedia (http://www.scholarpedia.org/) is quite good too, though it doesn’t cover a lot of topics (for now, at least). Here is how it works :
* Each article is written by an expert (invited or elected by the public).
* Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.
* Each article has a curator - typically its author — who is responsible for its content.
* Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.