<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apparently Wikipedia&#8217;s still controversial</title>
	<link>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/</link>
	<description>"A man needn't go far to find a subject, if he's ready with his salt-box."--Uncle Pumblechook</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Dance</title>
		<link>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13125</link>
		<author>Dance</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13125</guid>
		<description>Actually, I just realized that my answer to "do I cite this background?" is "your paper probably doesn't really need all that background. Filler!"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I just realized that my answer to &#8220;do I cite this background?&#8221; is &#8220;your paper probably doesn&#8217;t really need all that background. Filler!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jbj</title>
		<link>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13124</link>
		<author>jbj</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13124</guid>
		<description>As long as "not citing encyclopedias" is a general principle, which I can understand, then not citing Wikipedia seems reasonable to me.


And you're right: the links and references are often overrated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as &#8220;not citing encyclopedias&#8221; is a general principle, which I can understand, then not citing Wikipedia seems reasonable to me.</p>
<p>And you&#8217;re right: the links and references are often overrated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dance</title>
		<link>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13123</link>
		<author>Dance</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:23:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13123</guid>
		<description>I didn't know about #2. Thanks. Especially since I'm a little contrary---I do tell my students to cite background information on the better safe than sorry principle, and because they don't always know what is background, and what is background to their topic is not the same as common knowledge---but I also say don't cite Wikipedia because you shouldn't cite encyclopedias anyhow. Guess I should fix that.

Re the 4 ways, I specifically advocate reading Wikipedia for Context and Keywords and narrowing down thesis/question ideas, but am frequently unhappy with the Links and References they offer, so I mention that with a caution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn&#8217;t know about #2. Thanks. Especially since I&#8217;m a little contrary&#8212;I do tell my students to cite background information on the better safe than sorry principle, and because they don&#8217;t always know what is background, and what is background to their topic is not the same as common knowledge&#8212;but I also say don&#8217;t cite Wikipedia because you shouldn&#8217;t cite encyclopedias anyhow. Guess I should fix that.</p>
<p>Re the 4 ways, I specifically advocate reading Wikipedia for Context and Keywords and narrowing down thesis/question ideas, but am frequently unhappy with the Links and References they offer, so I mention that with a caution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rizzo</title>
		<link>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13121</link>
		<author>Rizzo</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jbj.wordherders.net/2008/08/20/apparently-wikipedias-still-controversial/#comment-13121</guid>
		<description>The antagonism towards Wikipedia is hilarious to me.  Sure, there are inaccuracies, but how much worse is it than the textbooks that students use?  Various fact-check projects have shown textbooks to contain tons of errors.

Speaking of t-shirts, would you at all mind if I send you an invitation and a 20%-off coupon code when my t-shirt site is up? (which should be in October).   Busted has great shirts, and I think you'll like some of my stuff too.

Just let me know, thanks!


Peace,
Rizzo
rizzotees@gmail.com
http://www.RizzoTees.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The antagonism towards Wikipedia is hilarious to me.  Sure, there are inaccuracies, but how much worse is it than the textbooks that students use?  Various fact-check projects have shown textbooks to contain tons of errors.</p>
<p>Speaking of t-shirts, would you at all mind if I send you an invitation and a 20%-off coupon code when my t-shirt site is up? (which should be in October).   Busted has great shirts, and I think you&#8217;ll like some of my stuff too.</p>
<p>Just let me know, thanks!</p>
<p>Peace,<br />
Rizzo<br />
<a href="mailto:rizzotees@gmail.com">rizzotees@gmail.com</a><br />
<a href="http://www.RizzoTees.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.RizzoTees.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
