Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia is a great place to start. Wikipedia is not paper , and that is a good thing because articles are not strictly limited in size as they are with paper encyclopedias. Articles steadily become more polished as they develop, particularly if one person is working on an article with reasonable regularity (inclining others to help the ...
See also why Wikipedia is so great. Learning to write in a neutral point of view is a useful intellectual exercise, since it requires cultivating humility and respect for the views of others. Wikipedia is a remarkable phenomenon of social organization; learning how things work here provides valuable lessons for many other kinds of organizations.
Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources that vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you ought be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
Wikipedia is "a major player in the internet landscape" [4] and "if you want to control “the truth”, you want to control Wikipedia." [5] "It is high time not only to acknowledge Wikipedia's quality but also to start actively promoting its use and development in academia" [6] Surveys tell us:
This argument goes thus: Search for any sensible topic on any search engine. Most of the time, Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project will be one of the top results. No other website reaches this level of omnipresence. The reason Wikipedia is so high on the list is because so many people use Wikipedia despite the warnings.
A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
You may succeed in getting a borderline-notability article there for a short time. You may occupy a lot of editor time in repeatedly deleting it. But it won't last, and it will make it more difficult to get an article accepted if and when you do start to make it. So it's a very bad investment. So back to the guitar and the home studio.
(e.g., Bill Clinton did this good thing but some say it was bad. He also did this bad thing but some say it was not so bad as opposed to Bill Clinton did this thing and then that thing.) To put it another way, good writing makes NPOV flow like an encyclopedia; not-so-good writing makes it flow like "Crossfire".