“Wikipedia? What the hell is that, Mr. Miller? I’m certain that you just made that word up.”
The only thing I can think of for a reason for that is that they wanted you to learn how to find things in places other than the encyclopedia in the back of the classroom/library. I don’t think we were ever not allowed to use the encyclopedia, but we were usually required to have cites from at least X different sources (and often including something like a magazine). It forced us to get more familiar with the card catalog and asking for help, plus, I think they just wanted us to practice making bibliographies.
I’m fairly certain that that was exactly why – they wanted to teach us how to actually do library searches and conduct research.
It’s why, by age 13 or 14, I was really good at using the microfilm and microfiche readers at the public library. 
Yeah, given that @Ruken referenced Yale’s page on common knowledge, we may be talking different age groups. My first “research project”, in third grade in 1982, absolutely used the Encyclopedia as a resource. My graduate-level paper, at Harvard in 2012, did not.
I like that Yale cite about “common knowledge.” It emphasizes that you gotta know your audience. If someone started a thread here about the U-6 unemployment rate and didn’t explain themselves, I’d idly wonder whether they meant to start it on an economist messageboard instead of a general interest one. When I write about my own field, I don’t just start throwing out terms like Zone of Proximal Development and achievement vs. aptitude tests and NCLB and IEP without explaining what I mean, even though I absolutely do that when talking with other teachers. Common knowledge depends on the audience, and you cite accordingly.
Well, that, and encyclopedias aren’t great sources for in depth knowledge, which is what you’re supposed to be gaining by writing a research paper. Encyclopedias are, themselves, already summaries, so if that’s your only source, you’re not really synthesizing and digesting the knowledge, you’re at best just rephrasing the encyclopedia entries.
On the other hand, they are great to get a list of the cites you are actually looking for.
I know we’re getting off topic here. But I really wish teachers these days would stop with the “don’t ever, ever look at wikipedia, everything on wikipedia is wrong and you should feel bad for looking at it” and instead, teach kids HOW to use it (which could be a great lesson in skepticism and why you should question everything instead of just having blind faith the what you’re told is true).
A few years back my daughter was writing a paper for school. I pulled up wiki and before I could even show her how to use the cites at the bottom of the page, she acted like she was going to get expelled. The next time I was at a parent/teacher conference, I tried to get the teacher to explain to her that she could use wiki for the cites (not as a source in and of itself) and, my god, I barely got past the “wikipedia” before I was shut down.
And that makes sense. Teachers should be teaching you (even if they have to force it) how to use more than just one cite. The encyclopedias are a perfect example as they really don’t exist anymore (but microfilm/microfiche, I assume, still does, even if it’s digitized).
Sure, but we’re talking about, like, 10 year olds. Their research papers on snakes or Mars or George Washington aren’t going to be all that in depth.
But the issue there isn’t whether a cite is necessary. It’s whether you’ve got a good source for the cite.
At a boarding school in the 60’s, with access only to a very limited school library, we (teenagers) were taught to do cites using what IIRC was called a “source book”: we were provided with a book that was made up of papers, articles, portions of books, etc. that were relevant to the subjects we were supposed to write on, and told that as adults or college students we’d be expected to find such sources for ourselves, but as we weren’t a position to be able to do so we were to use the source book to learn how to write the cites (how to properly do footnotes, bibliographies, and so on.)
Hah! Some years back, a fellow teacher mentioned that woolly worms could predict the winter and that she’d been teaching her students about that as part of a science unit on climate. I told her I didn’t think that was accurate, and showed her a link to the Wikipedia article discussing research on the subject. She did exactly that “Wikipedia is worthless!” business, even after I showed her the links to the research in question.
So: Wikipedia? Bad source of information. Woolly worms? Good source of information.
Because it’s a general interest topic covered in national newspapers.
Do you believe that the majority of this messageboard’s users are familiar enough with BLS classification codes that it makes sense to discuss unemployment rates by their codes without explaining what those codes mean?
I wonder whether people spreading that one have ever paid attention to more than one woolly caterpillar in any given year. I always find significant color variations on them in the same year. Which one am I supposed to believe?
Exactly! If you rarely pay attention to the natural world, it’s possible to think that somehow Woolly Worms are deeply tapped into Arctic climactic trends or something. But anyone who actually pays attention to local wildlife will have the same experience as you: Woolly Worms come in a lovely variety of shades and “fur” thicknesses.
It’s about as convincing as Groundhog Day.
The really odd thing is that I’ve sometimes heard that particular claim from people who live in the country and who do pay attention to at least some of the local wildlife. I guess they just don’t pay attention to the woolies.
Whichever ones matched the current climate. Naturally, you can use confirmationally biased reasons to explain the other ones.
It only takes a handful capable of participation to have a good conversation. I don’t believe the majority of this messageboard’s users are familiar enough with most topics to justify their participation (vs just reading) in most threads. That certainly doesn’t stop many from trying, but best not to encourage them.
But if you read WSJ/wapo/NYTimes daily or listen to Planet Money regularly on NPR, you’ve encountered the term. If you don’t, best to move along or read quietly like I do when I see a thread on whatever Indian Wells tennis is. I’m glad people who know what that is and are interested in it have a place to talk about it.
That’s an incredibly dismissive way of approaching a message board or even an IRL conversation.
And what if the thread caught your attention for one reason or another. I know I click on threads I know nothing about or have no interest in just because I’m curious. Often times, as the thread progresses I’ve started to get up to speed, but I might still have some questions.
If the only people that can participate in a discussion are people already fully knowledgeable about the subject, there’s not going to be a whole lot of discussions to be had.
and this…
is just an outright slam on the message board. I’m not entirely sure why you choose to hang out here when you seem to have a fairly low opinion of us.
I feel like you’re not quite grasping the point of this message board. It’s specifically built for people to learn about things they don’t fully understand. It’s not set up to be an echo chamber.
You don’t think people should be encouraged, on these boards, to read about subjects they don’t well understand?
How can ignorance be fought if the ignorant are to be discouraged from reading?
How does using unexplained jargon and cant encourage people to lessen their ignorance?
Agreed 100%.
I’m not sure if you did that on purpose, but it was a perfect example of someone saying “hmm, people might not know what this term means, I should link to a definition so they’ll understand” as opposed to having an attitude of “anyone who doesn’t know what this term means ought not be participating here”.