Difference between revisions of "User talk:Tomt"
From Conservapedia
(No encyclopedia should be used in research) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Goodness, I hope you would not use ''any'' encyclopedia in a piece of research. Not Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, not the Encyclopædia Britannica. None of them are acceptable references. They are at best useful for acquiring background in an unknown area, but they are secondary sources at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT) | Goodness, I hope you would not use ''any'' encyclopedia in a piece of research. Not Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, not the Encyclopædia Britannica. None of them are acceptable references. They are at best useful for acquiring background in an unknown area, but they are secondary sources at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :You must remember that when I am researching I am finding mostly out information on topics on my A level course, and therefore use many encyclopedias, textbooks and websites in amalgamating a piece of research. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 14:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:21, March 25, 2007
Use in research
You say: "I would not currently use many of the articles in a piece of research due to this bias."
Goodness, I hope you would not use any encyclopedia in a piece of research. Not Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, not the Encyclopædia Britannica. None of them are acceptable references. They are at best useful for acquiring background in an unknown area, but they are secondary sources at best. Dpbsmith 13:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- You must remember that when I am researching I am finding mostly out information on topics on my A level course, and therefore use many encyclopedias, textbooks and websites in amalgamating a piece of research. --TomT 14:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
