Written as a college instructor, can I guarantee that certain issues that come several times during each class in writing. Questions are:
When should I use, “then” and when can I do with “as”?
How do I write a thesis statement?
Where can I find the page number?
Then there are other general questions such as:
They increasingly start on time to class and class at the end of time?
Is there someone who teaches the course?
You are married. Really? You? (Often followed by “The poor woman” whispered under his breath.)
But perhaps the most frequent question I get is whether Wikipedia, the ubiquitous online encyclopedia, can be used as a viable source for scientific work. In response to this question, I try to explain how the academic discourse – it is accuracy, credibility, objectivity, peer review, etc.. Most of the time, the students blankly rigid and tell me: “So … ah … is not it?”
As such, I am looking for a better answer, I hope that eventually the tranquility of this issue, since the threat in the halls of science and food on the knowledge my brain like a zombie students of one of the old Simpson’s Halloween special. Finally, I think I finally found the answer to, all men, the founder of Wikipedia.com, Jimmy Wales. I quote The Chronicle of Higher Education:
At a conference at the University of Pennsylvania, on Friday of “The hyperlink,” said Mr. Wales, he had about 10 emails per week, students, deplore, that Wikipedia was academic in hot water. “They say, ‘Help me. I have an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia ‘ “and information as evil, he said. But he said he does not have the gravity of the situation, whereas it think to herself: “For God, you’re in College, no quote from the encyclopedia. ”
Mr Wales is on to say that Wikipedia is always good for an overview of a subject, but noted that scientific work should be real sources – you know, as nature, see the library.