this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1038 points (90.5% liked)

Showerthoughts

30037 readers
300 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I was always told not to quote Wikipedia. They told everyone this because people would constantly quote Wikipedia and then someone would edit it so that the paragraph was now different. It was a right pain even if the information was correct.

What you do is you check Wikipedia's sources and then quote those sources. Hopefully they're quoting academic papers and not blog posts because otherwise you're just kicking the cam down the road.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hated in high school that teachers always said the internet isn't a good source.

In college I finally realized that websites were poor sources because they change and move, whereas a published book, edition, and page number won't change. But that doesn't mean you can't use the Internet to find a good source - you just need to cite the source itself and not the site.

Everything I've published is published digitally, but the journals still have editions and page numbers. When someone cites my work, they need to cite that information - not the website that may change names or shut down.

So now I'm mostly mad that teachers don't explain why websites shouldn't be cited. It makes good sense in that context.

[–] spark947@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it definitely was a huge breakdown in academic's to adapt to new technology, and it is at the core of a lot of the societal problems we face today. Of course, a lot of the reasons for this were by design at the hands of a few corporate actors, and they share a lot of culpability.

There are philosophical underpinnings too - a lot of academics are still caught up on modernism (which would rightfully distrust new internet sources in favor of legacy sources of proven idealistic knowledge) vs. Postmodernism, which would provide a framework to recognize the truth in these systems.

One thing to keep in mind is that computers and the internet are still extremely new, and we are still figuring them out. It has only been a decade and a half where everyone has a general purpose, internet connected computer in their pocket.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

There's still good and plenty fuckery that can happen with citing books, though. Depending on the obscurity of the book, whether or not it's out of print, or just has been outright destroyed, it might be really hard to access a copy, and check the source, especially if someone doesn't have access to the internet archive or library genesis, i.e. digital scans of said book. There are reprints and new editions, sometimes not noted by the author of the citation (the author might have no way of knowing, depends), which can change or remove quoted passages. The internet also contains the ability to mass copy anything you want, and cite that copy, like what the internet archive does with the wayback machine, so if you have a citation of a webpage it's probably a good idea to copy that in time and then spread it around anyways just for the sake of posterity and accessibility, especially if it's obscure or is likely to be changed or removed. Same as you might for a book, except much easier, it's much harder to copy a whole book in context and spread that around compared to a webpage.

[–] Littleborat@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Quote the sources or the source's sources of Wikipedia. You would not believe how bullet proof this is against plagiarism if you do your citations correctly.

I don't even understand how people get caught.