/sci/, is my community college unusually "community,"

>>8229902
>>8229902

I think it's acceptable as long as the information is accurate. If you feel some thing's fishy then cross check with another source. Community college is cool bro

Considering most of my textbooks throughout college never credited a source for this type of thing, at least they own up to it.

>>8229902
lol

>>8229911
Good point...

>>8229902

Why do academics feel the need to shit on wikipedia?

it's supposed to be just like academia: anyone can come on and write or debate and it's peer reviewed.

anyone who talks shit about wikipedia is just an elitist fag.

> only muh journal that charges 40 bucks per issue for a 3 page PDF of articles that the authors paid to have published is reputable

>>8230664
Quoting from Wikipedia is useless without also supplying a date, and more so because of the alterability itself. The information found there may be the most accurate in the world, but the mere possibility of anyone vandalizing the data at any moment means that its reliability will never be beyond question. The fact that books take an edition each to update information also means that they are well-suited for quotation.

>>8230664
All I know is five, six years ago, it was "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE, QUOTING IT MEANS AUTOFAIL". Then I come back to school last year and everyone's suddenly decided it's okay.

Chemistry 1 is going to be like this anywhere you go.

Actually, the source is usually the fucking book you have to buy and NOT fucking wikipedia, but it seems accurate so its fine.

>>8230664

>Why do academics feel the need to shit on wikipedia

Most of the time, there's a source for anything being said on wikipedia, and it's an academic publication if it relates to science.

You don't cite wikipedia - you cite wikipedia's citations.

Academics don't like any source of information that purports to describe advanced subjects while being easily accessible, because it leads to students getting ahead of themselves and laymen thinking they can run their mouths.

The control of information has collapsed, and so attempts are being made to control the context of information. Wikipedia and online courses are going to destroy intellectualism by rendering intellectual subjects common discourse, and destroying the elitism which enables academics to imagine themselves as being more right than everyone else.

>>8230675

The academics lost, and now everyone thinks they can do science. Carl Sagan won, because his dream was an educated populace.

It's no accident that we figure out how to elongate telomeres about ten years after all these universities start putting so much up on the internet. The professionals entering the field today grew up accessing papers as teenagers for personal research or internet arguments.

>>8229911
except they do, they just put that information at the back of the chapter

>>8230687

>Actually, the source is usually the fucking book you have to buy

The book can and often is provided for free in digital form. The school still pays the publisher, or amazon for each copy though.

This drives up the cost of education, so that poor smart people can't afford it and there aren't enough scholarships for everyone. Which is the goal, because western academia is throwing itself off Basket Weaving cliff, and we need basket weaving to be an exclusive trade because that's all the elites can do and we don't want them to feel stupid.