So I just read two articles from the site. The first one that grabbed my attention was “Strange Facts in the History Classroom: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Wiki(pedia)” partly because it was parodying the title of Dr. Strangelove. I thought the overall article was pretty interesting since we’d done a little unit on Wikipedia and the history pages of wikipedia a couple weeks ago. One thing that struck me was when he said only 7 out of his 28 students had heard of wikipedia, I had to go back and see when this was written 2006 and then it made a bit more sense. However, I feel like even in 2006, teachers were already beginning to warn us about wikipedia so most of my class knew about it. Christopher Miller brought up a good point when he said that Wikipedia was singled out as being “bad” for being an internet source rather than for it being an encyclopedia. He said that encyclopedias were off limits to college students when writing and academic paper. In the conclusion of his article he said that many of the students came to the conclusion that Wikipedia had more-or-less the same accuracy as encyclopedias and could not be used as a single source. The other article I read was “Enhancing Internet USe For History by Categorizing Online Resources” talked about the different ways you could find sources, I suppose. It was rather common sense in my opinion. It divided up the 3 types of resources as Periodical Lit Indexes, Library Catalogs, and Full Text Databases. The category names in themselves tell you what you can find in each section, although you have to pay attention to see if it costs any money to retrieve the items you search for.
Now I must get back to looking up information on Gettysburg for our site. I hope the library workers don’t get annoyed that I’ve pretty much emptied one section of the shelf, haha.