Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
This is based on the academics that you know, again?
It really depends on the information. Wiki has tightened up on quality control but as with any other internet source, it is often a good idea to read the sources cited unless the info is "common knowledge" (which apparently Saul's Jewish status isn't). I read the Acts chapter and verse that the link that I posted cited because I own Bibles and love reading them.  |
Haha! But of course it's based on the academics I know. Many older academics I know are virulently against any use of wikipedia. There are plenty I do know who like it thought. And I bet that some of the ones who disdain it still turn to it from time to time. I think it's an amazing information resource, but not to be used without critical thought. I often cite it on the web because it's easy to find and usually very readable.
I don't post wiki articles that are crap - and there certainly are some. One of their major problems now is that so many of their articles are based on Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 which needless to say is a text that incorporates many distasteful remarks about non-British cultures.
Basically no good academic paper should ever use an encyclopedia as a source. That's been the case for years. Wikipedia has the added disadvantage that it's user-created. Yet I'm still pro-wikipedia.