This has nothing to do with node your homework!

The assignment seemed relatively simple: I had to do comparisons of some major world religions. Of course, it would be a lot more simple if the internet was purely a research tool and not a cesspool of porn and commercialization...

My World Book CD-ROM Encyclopedia for Mac is a poorly done and crash prone app. Google and the Open Directory are both quality resources, but still not quite the information I need. Britannica Online is helpful, but still not quite what I'm looking for.

The search thus far has consumed more time than I expected. Seeking a break, I switch over to E2. Out of curiosity, I throw "Buddhism" (one of subjects I was researching) into the search field, and begin scanning through the resulting node. Surprisingly, the information was relevant, and essentially what I was looking for. Detailed, yet comprehensive.

I guess the bottom line is that Everything is written by real people, writing for the benefit of the world. Britannica is written by guys in suits who write encyclopedias for a job... No real chance to exercise creative freedom there. Granted, being Everything, accuracy obviously isn't guaranteed, though through the voting system, its certainly encouraged.

For the first time ever, Everything has contributed to my homework, instead of contributing to my procrastination. My essay has the research it needs, and a few informative nodes on various world religons were upvoted. If you have an essay to write and credible information just isn't workin' for ya, try E2!

Why you should

There is a great deal of factual information here, much of it written in an interesting and engaging style which is quite different from a dull academic text. Research on E2 can be much more interesting than research in another source of information and can bring you a number of different perspectives on the same subject.

Why you shouldn't

The Everything credibility problem. Noder steev states it well:

"The problem is... that a lot of factual noding here is not adequately supported."

Amen to that. I can say that most of the writeups I've read ,on topics I know well, have been accurate, but here's a counterexample.

I will use Agent000's example of Buddhism, since said node demonstrates my point extremely well. There is a lot of information on Buddhism, with a number of different perspectives, under that one heading.

Some of those writeups are wrong. I don't mean that they take sides on a debatable issue, I mean they're w-r-o-n-g, factually incorrect, made up.

Pi says "Buddhist practice involves meditation", and his/her assertion is not countered elsewhere in the node. S/he is wrong. Amida Buddhism does not require meditation from its followers; some schools hold that saying the name of Amida Buddha just once is enough to achieve salvation, if the speaker truly means it. cordin's statements on Mahayana Buddhism are also inaccurate; s/he is describing Pure Land Buddhism, not Mahayana in general. Brian Feldman's information is broadly accurate, but he(?) doesn't go into the many and varied schools of Buddhism. Kaytay's metanode has good brief descriptions of various Buddhist concepts and is reasonably accurate. The linked writeups have more information, but...

Not one of the writeups refers to any outside source. There is no way of telling whether they are accurate.
Did you catch my error? I'm not giving independent verification for my assertions either. It's my word, based on what I've learned in my East Asian history classes, against all the others.

I use Buddhism as an example partially because I had to write a paper on it for the aforementioned class. My professor was a stickler for accuracy and detail, and he specifically warned the class against relying on Internet resources for its research. He, an internationally renowned expert in his field, warned us that there is a great deal of nonsense about Buddhism on the Internet. He said that if we chose to cite online resources, we would be required to verify their information in a legitimate source.

Had I handed in a paper based on what I learned here, with all my E2 citations neatly typed in proper MLA style, I would have failed nonetheless, because I would have been relying on blatant falsehoods.

Agent000's homenode states that he is in high school. Perhaps such a low standard of accuracy will pass in high schools, but it will not work in any decent college or graduate school.

What can be done about this?

Cite your sources. Please and thank you. Some factual noders cite their sources admirably well, to standards that would pass muster with a strict professor. Others (far too many, myself included) do no such thing. Their writeups might be accurate, or they might be a bunch of made-up shit. If you're doing research into a topic, then the chances are good that you don't know the difference.

So... IF a writeup cites reliable outside sources by reliable authors, and IF you confirm what the writeup says independently, then it's safe to use E2 for homework. Do not treat factual writeups that do not cite their research as good sources of information; they might be right, and they might be wrong, but you don't know which it is. The voting system does help weed out the crap, but if the voter does not understand the topic, then eir vote says nothing about the quality of the node.

So. Cite or die! Can you do any less?. All factual knowledge is built on previous knowledge, and there is no shame whatsoever in doing research.


Note: The Buddhism node has since been updated with excellent writeups by Spasemunki and the E2_Religion group. However, the purpose of this writeup was not to comment on the truth or falsehood of the information on Buddhism; I meant to make a point about trusting what one reads here on E2, and I think that point still stands.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.