Escorts use of ASDIC

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

Call it what you wish, Steve. I work in the education industry and Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source by the academic community.

I understand. My justification is based on the word of a history professor who frequents these boards, whose arguments I plagiarized myself. His comment was that no internet source is to be taken seriously, and likewise with most published books. He also commented that for internet discussions it is more than valid as long as one can verify the sources used. For true academic purposes only a fully researched and verified document will do, and you are unlikely to find any of those on the internet, especially concerning the subjects we discuss here.

Likewise, I have personally seen enough plagiarism, insufficient sourcing, overreliance on individual sources and bias in enough wiki articles to utterly reject it as a viable tertiary source.

Again I understand. On the other hand some time ago a local troll called me to account for using Wiki, yet the author of the article cited more that twenty references to the subject at hand, and a search of the 'net uncovered several other sources that verified everything in the article.

I agree that using Wiki as the sole source of information for an argument is a bad idea, but I see nothing wrong with using it as a springboard for initial information, especially if the purpose is to explore all the possible sources.

If you feel it is snobbish, then I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it vehemently.

Not that you feel that way. It was something about the way you said it that set me off. Perhaps because I didn't see it as necessary in the first place.

However, the fact of the matter is that Academia rejects Wikipedia and I do not see that changing nor do I plan on jeopardizing the viability of any of my research by using their articles. For a quick reference or an informal brief, it is sufficient. For scholastic research, Encyclopedia Britannica it is not.

Again I understand. But Subsim is not Academia, and never can be. Even now I'm reading a fascinating new source on the development of the British destroyer through the First World War, written by the most respected author on the subject, and I'm finding discrepancies and vagaries galore. Even though he cites primary sources I still question the validity of several of his assertions. If I were to write a review of the book I would have to mention that in some cases I find the older sources to be more credible. On the other hand I have no access to primary sources, so any judgement I make has to be based on what little I have, and I have to trust somebody at some point.

With that in mind I stand by my assertion that while any internet source should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, Wiki is no worse than any other as a basic starting point, and has on many ocassions proved very helpful.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I understand. My justification is based on the word of a history professor who frequents these boards, whose arguments I plagiarized myself. His comment was that no internet source is to be taken seriously, and likewise with most published books. He also commented that for internet discussions it is more than valid as long as one can verify the sources used. For true academic purposes only a fully researched and verified document will do, and you are unlikely to find any of those on the internet, especially concerning the subjects we discuss here.

I see where the professor is coming from, but he sounds a bit behind the times. As far as denying all internet sources, I think he meant all open net sources. I doubt he would turn his nose up to a source dredged up from EBSCO or JSTOR.

Again I understand. On the other hand some time ago a local troll called me to account for using Wiki, yet the author of the article cited more that twenty references to the subject at hand, and a search of the 'net uncovered several other sources that verified everything in the article.

*sigh* Trolls. Still doing damage long after they are gone. I have found articles like the one you have described on Wiki. However, I couldn't do anything with them because it was Wiki. I simply cross-referenced the citations and drew my own conclusions.

I agree that using Wiki as the sole source of information for an argument is a bad idea, but I see nothing wrong with using it as a springboard for initial information, especially if the purpose is to explore all the possible sources.

I would be a liar and a hypocrite if I said I never did the same thing. However, there is a difference between a quick refresher and hardcore research. I know it is obvious and stating it is kind of silly, but I just wanted to make it clear.

Not that you feel that way. It was something about the way you said it that set me off. Perhaps because I didn't see it as necessary in the first place.

I was trying to save myself some frustration. I didn't want to have a well-intentioned individual send me a Wiki source that I could do nothing with. Last time I worked with a Wiki article, I literally bounced around it and two websites trying to figure out who plagiarized who.

Again I understand. But Subsim is not Academia, and never can be. Even now I'm reading a fascinating new source on the development of the British destroyer through the First World War, written by the most respected author on the subject, and I'm finding discrepancies and vagaries galore. Even though he cites primary sources I still question the validity of several of his assertions. If I were to write a review of the book I would have to mention that in some cases I find the older sources to be more credible. On the other hand I have no access to primary sources, so any judgement I make has to be based on what little I have, and I have to trust somebody at some point.

With that in mind I stand by my assertion that while any internet source should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, Wiki is no worse than any other as a basic starting point, and has on many ocassions proved very helpful.

Yet Subsim has a passion that many academics do not have. That is what I like about it. My only real concern is that I cannot help but get the impression that, despite the genuine and earnest desire to be as historically accurate as possible when discussing Subject No. 1, the second an academic shows up, people get upset.
To be fair, I know for an absolute fact that this aggravated by many bona fide jerks in academia. The first one that comes to mind is the late James L. Stokesbury. I just finished reading his A Short History of the Korean War and I was so utterly disgusted with his condescending, stereotypically politicized tirade masquerading as a historical analysis that I am in the early stages of composing a challenge to my alma mater to relegate this piece of twaddle to optional reading. The entire time I was reading the thing, I was cursing him for being one of the reasons why the layman hates academics so much.

...I am rambling...

I think we just had a disagreement from bad experiences in our respective past. I think everything is clarified just fine.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

I was trying to save myself some frustration. I didn't want to have a well-intentioned individual send me a Wiki source that I could do nothing with. Last time I worked with a Wiki article, I literally bounced around it and two websites trying to figure out who plagiarized who.

I understand.

Yet Subsim has a passion that many academics do not have. That is what I like about it. My only real concern is that I cannot help but get the impression that, despite the genuine and earnest desire to be as historically accurate as possible when discussing Subject No. 1, the second an academic shows up, people get upset.

This is true. Unfortunately when trying to make a game as accurate as possible it's difficult to know where to draw the line.

To be fair, I know for an absolute fact that this aggravated by many bona fide jerks in academia. The first one that comes to mind is the late James L. Stokesbury. I just finished reading his A Short History of the Korean War and I was so utterly disgusted with his condescending, stereotypically politicized tirade masquerading as a historical analysis that I am in the early stages of composing a challenge to my alma mater to relegate this piece of twaddle to optional reading. The entire time I was reading the thing, I was cursing him for being one of the reasons why the layman hates academics so much.

Makes sense to me. I live far outside the world of University and study, and yet I find myself studying all the time. I'm currently reading an honest biography of the James Brothers. I say "honest" because the author provides seemingly endless end notes, and has researched every other book on the subject, and when there are several different versions of any particular tale he shows all of them, including which version came from which source and while giving his opinion on the veracity of a particular version says up front that it is only his opinion and why. That is my kind of book.

...I am rambling...

Please explain why this is a bad thing?

I think we just had a disagreement from bad experiences in our respective past. I think everything is clarified just fine.

I have a bad habit of starting off on the wrong foot, and apologizing after the fact. When it leads to a good open discussion I at least get the chance to redeem myself. If we all agreed on everything we wouldn't learn anything.