A disadvantage of online sources generally is that they are not usually conducive to actual browsing. If you looked up malacology in a paper encyclopedia, you might also pick up something about Malaguena. Web searches don’t help much with that (yes, you often get random results, but not so helpful, like finding out that a misspelled snail genus is a bird genus, a misspelled Triassic archosaur, and a death metal band.) Some online journals do not even provide any sort of table of contents.
3 Likes
How would you know?
For too many people, Fox News is how they get their information
Most of them are gone and so you haven’t seen them. Mostly they were excellent, but a few were terrible.
I agree. All children should learn how to evaluate the information they come across. An article in the latest issue of Scientific American, “Schooled in Lies,” explains that “Kids are prime targets of disinformation.”
Then people should make public libraries (and public schools) a top priority. My library makes Academic Search Premier, available to all patrons, accessible from home. The librarians also have access to even more databases. We can even access LexisNexis from the library.
But even without a library there are good online resources other than wikipedia. PBS, universities, museums, etc. come to mind.
That’s why interlibrary loans are so valuable. You can borrow books from all over the U.S. My last ILL came from a seminary.
1 Like
Oh neat! so you read that pro-Scence magazine about which https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scientific-american/ says:
- Overall, we rate Scientific American Pro-Science and Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that favor the left and through advocating for the consensus of science and properly sourcing scientific information., and
And which https://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american says:
- Scientific American has a Lean Left bias.
- AllSides changed Scientific American’s media bias from Center to Lean Left in June 2020 following an independent review from an AllSides editor. The editor found that many Scientific American articles are written from the perspective of critical race theory, a widely debated foundation for academic study and critical thought typically associated with left-wing academics and commentators. The editor noted numerous articles in which SciAm revealed an ideological slant toward critical race theory, including a piece that claims that concerns about obesity in African American women “reflects the racist stigmatization of black women’s bodies.” Another article proclaimed, “Why Racism, Not Race, Is a Risk Factor for Dying of COVID-19,” and another spoke of the “weaponization of medical language [that] reinforced white supremacy at the torment of Black Americans.” Articles like this seem to indicate SciAm has adopted writers with a strong bent toward critical race theory, a movement and collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. Critical race theory begins with the view that race is the predominant structural element of American (and other) societies, and its merits as a foundation for objective scientific study have been widely criticized and debated. Critical race theory is typically associated with the American left.
- The editor found many articles on SciAm are not colored with left-wing political theory, but the presence of many left-wing views means Scientific American has a Lean Left bent.
What’s really interesting is that the latter site–when I entered “Wikipedia” into its search engine–tells me:
- Is Wikipedia biased?
AllSides provides media bias ratings for over 800 sources and writers. Until now, we rated Wikipedia as Center, but have changed them to Not Rated because the online encyclopedia does not fit neatly into AllSides’ media bias rating methodologies, which were developed specifically for news sites.
However, it’s worth exploring numerous studies and concerns that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, including from Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger.
Gee, fancy that: Wikipedia’s more like an encyclopedia than a journal.
I must be one of those. Or maybe the problem is that Google isn’t optimized for finding sources for databases that do not list sources, obscure publications, and data on obscure fossils.
Reminds me of this:
1 Like
Because I read them and have accessed probably close to a thousand scholarly journal articles and have hundreds of critical New Testament books on my shelf. When you read about things like the synoptic problem its fair.
Not perfect but contains a wealth of accurate information.
Do you really need a text book or scholarly journal article for that? Not if your goal is to see pros and cons of a host of solutions nd learn what is the primary scholarly view. But if you want to defend a new position at the highest level then your first step is to go learn to read Koine Greek. If you want a middle of the road knowledge then its a great place to go and get an overview and then jump into books and article from there which will have even more extensive Bibliographies. Wiki is the Queen of information.
There are different levels and purposes for information. Hoarding it all in libraries no one uses or behind scholarly journal paywalls is a thing of the past. People want digital information and they want it fast. I like the library. I wish more people went there.
Vinnie
1 Like
Get the word out for your p.l.s and start lobbying for better funding for others so the rest of the US has equitable access as you seem to enjoy.
1 Like
Good question about what all Elsevier produces. I didn’t know myself, since my library can’t afford to do business with them, unless we drop everything else we do. Here is their “overview” of “solutions”. Not everything offered here is a database. It was interesting to see what else they do: Elsevier Solutions Overview .
Wikipedia themselves strongly advise against citing WP as a source. They fully recognise that the quality and reliability of articles is highly variable. See the lead of their own advice:
WP can be very useful. But self-awareness about how we ourselves assess information is an essential accompaniment to reading what is there.
(Declaration of interest: Over the years I’ve made over 12,000 edits to WP main article space across a range of subject areas.)
5 Likes
Citing Youtube videos, on the other hand, is far more common and approved?
1 Like
When I was in college Wikipedia was usually the butt of a joke or a sign that someone hadn’t really bothered to research something – but it’s improved a lot. Enough so that I don’t plan on buying an entire bookshelf of encyclopedias like my parents did – my kids can just use Wikipedia.
2 Likes
It’s not that expensive. Anybody from out of town who supports my library at the $300+ level can access the academic search premier database, etc. That’s less than people pay for cable, etc. Anybody in Connecticut with a library card can check out a book or other media from any library in Connecticut. And anybody is welcome to enjoy a movie, lecture, concert, author talk, or whatever in our community room. (A lot has moved to zoom lately.)
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.