Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)

16. Well that's exactly the thing, a good Wikipedia article is loaded with good citations.

Reply to Igel (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 02:29 AM

Jan 2012

And if the citations are good and consistent with what the article is saying, its a good article. Its like that in any journal you read. People quote derivative works like journals all the time, you don't have to go back to the original. But the journals cost money, they put food on the table of professors, Wikipedia does not. So citing journals is acceptable.

As soon as the conversation moves away from "which statements are true based on their assertions" and toward "which statements are true based on who said them", you are out of science and into politics, and there is a lot of politics in the academic scene.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Science versus Academia [View all] Boojatta Jan 2012 OP

I think of science as being more a process than anything else.. n/t Fumesucker Jan 2012 #1

I think the scientific method is the key d_r Jan 2012 #2

That's one part of it. Igel Jan 2012 #15

yes I would agree with you d_r Jan 2012 #18

"actually works of science" iff they are published in peer reviewed, scientific journals that are jody Jan 2012 #3

How much peer review are we talking about? Boojatta Jan 2012 #5

Peer review usually means several "blind referees" read a proposed article and judge whether it jody Jan 2012 #8

Not all journals are the same. Please visit "Journal Rankings", link below, and google "ranking jody Jan 2012 #9

No Confusious Jan 2012 #4

The publication in a peer-reviewed foum implies it is science independent of the authors CV cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #6

What about the CVs of the people who conduct the peer review of the paper? Boojatta Jan 2012 #7

Yes, as a predictive aide cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #10

Sorry for intruding but one might not know who reviewed an article. That's at the discretion jody Jan 2012 #11

What is "works of science"? FarCenter Jan 2012 #12

There is a rift between the two. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2012 #13

Wiki can be good. Igel Jan 2012 #14

Well that's exactly the thing, a good Wikipedia article is loaded with good citations. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2012 #16

Scholarshit vs. Scholarship... the eternal struggle... JCMach1 Jan 2012 #17