Make the research come to you, conveniently

DWSTXS · Mar 5, 2008

Everyone knows how to research on the internet, and surely we all use Wikipedia et al.

Something I use a lot, because it is so convenient, is the Google Alerts.

Just tell Google what subject you want info on, and everytime there is a news story concerning that subject, you will be e-mailed a link from Google to the source. Just clink on the link, and voila! instant info for your current WIP

I use this a lot, and have found it to be handy. Especially if you already have another novel or two or three lined up as future projects. You can set the Google Alerts up, start gathering info now. Just make a folder in your e-mail storage for that WIP and start stockpiling research. By the time you start writing, you'll have scads of research ready-to-go!

I'm sure that Google isn't the only search engine that allows for alerts either.

Prawn · Mar 5, 2008

Thumbs up for the tip!

ishtar'sgate · Mar 5, 2008

That's a good idea. I never thought of using Google Alerts to find research material I just use it to track where and when my novel pops up. Thanks for the suggestion!
Linnea

megan_d · Mar 5, 2008

Wikipedia, oh dear... I hope everyone uses reliable sources in addition to wiki.

lute · Mar 5, 2008

megan_d said:
Wikipedia, oh dear... I hope everyone uses reliable sources in addition to wiki.

Haha, yeah. I use Wikipedia in the beginning of my research for basic knowledge and information, and then look at their references and citations for more details (and to make sure that it's credible to begin with), along with a more detailed search. Wikipedia can have some... interesting things written down with no citations and should be taken as a grain of salt.

Thank you so much for the Google alert feature reminder! For some reason, I knew about it, but didn't have the time (read: lazy) to look further into it as an option. It's a very good idea and I think I will be using it in the future. Very informative!

DWSTXS · Mar 5, 2008

okay everyone...I DID say Wkipedia et al.

I don't use Wiki exclusively, and I know that most serious researchers will always check a minimum of 3 sources.

lute · Mar 5, 2008

DWSTXS said:
okay everyone...I DID say Wkipedia et al.

I don't use Wiki exclusively, and I know that most serious researchers will always check a minimum of 3 sources.

I don't think Megan or I were pointing fingers

Er, at least I wasn't. And God knows, despite it's infamous name for lack of credible sources, I love that place.

Paichka · Mar 5, 2008

I read recently that in an independent verification of facts, Wikipedia measured up against Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of quality of information.

Because I :heart:

Google, I found the article here.

Wikipedia is like any other Encyclopedia -- it can only be used for broad brushstrokes of information. Really exhaustive research requires primary sources, etc, which is why in college even the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica can't be cited as a source in research papers. At least in my college it couldn't.

I

Wikipedia, too.

megan_d · Mar 6, 2008

But some guy off the street can't write an article for the Encyclopedia Brirannica. Well, he could, but they probably wouldn't print it...

I do not heart the wiki. It is my arch nemisis!

nicolen · Mar 6, 2008

As Paichka said, wiki is surprisingly accurate. If I just need a very basic overview, then it's the best place to go. If I need to go into any depth, then it's time to hit the library.

With wiki, though, avoid the articles on controversial topics - they're the ones that often have been edited to show the editor's opinion rather than the facts and are less accurate...

mscelina · Mar 6, 2008

Just as a slightly-off-topic diversion, Google Alerts is also good for published writers. Set one for your name and one for your book/story title. It lets you know when you pop up online (save a lot of tedious self-googling) and is particularly good if you get a new review somewhere. Some review sites don't inform you when their review is posted--this eliminates all the uncertainty and you can get right there as soon as it comes up. Even more important, IMHO, it makes you aware if an unauthorized use is made of your work.

johnnysannie · Mar 6, 2008

Paichka said:
I read recently that in an independent verification of facts, Wikipedia measured up against Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of quality of information.

Because I Google, I found the article here.

Wikipedia is like any other Encyclopedia -- it can only be used for broad brushstrokes of information. Really exhaustive research requires primary sources, etc, which is why in college even the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica can't be cited as a source in research papers. At least in my college it couldn't.

I Wikipedia, too.

There's a huge difference between Wikipedia and "any other encylopedia". Anyone can write a Wiki page and there is no verification of facts at all. Some Wiki pages may be correct but many are not; unless you know (and if you're just beginning to research, you won't) what the facts are, I would not suggest using Wikipedia as a major source.

Other encylopedias, like Britannica as one example, do fact check and they do have reputable people write the entries as well as verify the information.

zegota · Mar 6, 2008

johnnysannie said:
Some Wiki pages may be correct but many are not; unless you know (and if you're just beginning to research, you won't) what the facts are, I would not suggest using Wikipedia as a major source.

Really? Putting aside the previous article suggesting that Wikipedia is more often correct than Britannica, do you have any proof for this statement? Do you know of an article that is blatantly false?

If so, why haven't you changed it?

Yes, any "guy off the street" can write a Wikipedia article. This ludicrous scenario is offset by the fact that any bored expert can get updates and quickly correct the material. The only things you can usually get away with, that are false, are inserting not-so-obvious, tiny details into a very large article. Even these, though, are usually deleted without a citation.

Wikipedia is an amazing source for information, especially historical and scientific factual information, all of which should include a citation, per Wikipedia rules. Information that is hard to separate from individual biases and viewpoints should obviously be taken with a grain of salt, but this is true of any source.

Shadow_Ferret · Mar 6, 2008

DWSTXS said:
Everyone knows how to research on the internet, and surely we all use Wikipedia et al.

Something I use a lot, because it is so convenient, is the Google Alerts.

Just tell Google what subject you want info on, and everytime there is a news story concerning that subject, you will be e-mailed a link from Google to the source. Just clink on the link, and voila! instant info for your current WIP

I'm wondering how many articles I'd get on vampires, werewolves, fairies, and sprites?

I love Wiki. Great starting point for any research project.

rainboy · Mar 6, 2008

johnnysannie said:
There's a huge difference between Wikipedia and "any other encylopedia". Anyone can write a Wiki page and there is no verification of facts at all. Some Wiki pages may be correct but many are not; unless you know (and if you're just beginning to research, you won't) what the facts are, I would not suggest using Wikipedia as a major source.

Other encylopedias, like Britannica as one example, do fact check and they do have reputable people write the entries as well as verify the information.

Wikipedia survives research test

John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.
But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.
It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good

- Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder

It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

Writing style
Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.
The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.
"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.
"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.
The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.
Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.
Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Just thought I would put it out there.

DWSTXS · Mar 6, 2008

Shadow_Ferret said:
I'm wondering how many articles I'd get on vampires, werewolves, fairies, and sprites?

I love Wiki. Great starting point for any research project.

you'll get one a day for each subject, maybe more.

I have, on alert, Bob Dylan, Psychology, Psychiatry, and manned mission to mars.

I get one to three articles daily on each subject.

johnnysannie · Mar 6, 2008

zegota said:
Really? Putting aside the previous article suggesting that Wikipedia is more often correct than Britannica, do you have any proof for this statement? Do you know of an article that is blatantly false?

If so, why haven't you changed it?

Yes, any "guy off the street" can write a Wikipedia article. This ludicrous scenario is offset by the fact that any bored expert can get updates and quickly correct the material. The only things you can usually get away with, that are false, are inserting not-so-obvious, tiny details into a very large article. Even these, though, are usually deleted without a citation.

Wikipedia is an amazing source for information, especially historical and scientific factual information, all of which should include a citation, per Wikipedia rules. Information that is hard to separate from individual biases and viewpoints should obviously be taken with a grain of salt, but this is true of any source.

Wow, a Wiki defender. I have to wonder why you care so much.

To answer your questions, yes, I see Wikipedia pages that have incorrect information on occasion but no, I don't have the time to change them. See, I make my living writing and I don't have the spare time to be the truth defender of the internet.

Do I know for certain some of the Wiki entries are false? Yes, I do. For one, someone changed the entry about me and on that one, you bet I edited it back to the truth.

There is really no reason to depend on Wikipedia as a resource, not when the Internet is filled with reputable sources that can be quoted or cited without a sense of embarassment. I would never cite Wikipedia as a valid source, not in my wildest dreams. To me, it would be totally unprofessional and almost certain to bite me when I mistook some "fact" for truth.

Paichka · Mar 6, 2008

johnnysannie said:
There is really no reason to depend on Wikipedia as a resource, not when the Internet is filled with reputable sources that can be quoted or cited without a sense of embarassment. I would never cite Wikipedia as a valid source, not in my wildest dreams. To me, it would be totally unprofessional and almost certain to bite me when I mistook some "fact" for truth.

Well, I half agree with you.

I can't think of a single university or organization where a paper/professional article/whatever could cite Wikipedia as a source. Both in my undergraduate degree and my master's degree, my professors would not allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source. Of course, they also would not allow any other Encyclopedia to be cited as a source, either.

The way that I was taught to do research back in my halcyon school days was to look up my topic in an Encyclopedia for bare bones facts -- then to go back and flesh out my research with primary source material. The primary source material was the only material I could cite on my references pages. Wikipedia, provided the articles are cited, lends itself admirably to this method.

It's a great step 1. Could I write an entire historical novel accurately using just Wikipedia as a source? No, but I also couldn't using Encyclopedia Britannica. In order to convincingly portray ANYTHING accurately, your research needs to be more exhaustive than relying simply on an encyclopedia -- "open source" or not.

Just my 2 cents.

ethinker · Mar 6, 2008

Wiki Picky

lute said:
I use Wikipedia in the beginning of my research for basic knowledge and information, and then look at their references and citations for more details (and to make sure that it's credible to begin with), along with a more detailed search. Wikipedia can have some... interesting things written down with no citations and should be taken as a grain of salt.

No doubt we are all after solid information. It's a good starting place, at least as far as I have found, and yes, there are some interesting tidbits dropped in, but overall, as a spring board I have found it to be one of many places for me to begin research.

Thanks for the Google tip, I will be setting that up now!

zegota · Mar 7, 2008

johnnysannie said:
Wow, a Wiki defender. I have to wonder why you care so much.

Mostly because I hate it when people pass on such a great resource because "common sense" dictates the idea is faulty.

johnnysannie said:
Do I know for certain some of the Wiki entries are false? Yes, I do. For one, someone changed the entry about me and on that one, you bet I edited it back to the truth.

I'll grant you this unashamedly. Biographical articles on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with non-historical figures, are the ones that are most prone to error and vandalism. Particularly, it's hard to cite anything for people who aren't famous worldwide.

johnnysannie said:
There is really no reason to depend on Wikipedia as a resource, not when the Internet is filled with reputable sources that can be quoted or cited without a sense of embarassment. I would never cite Wikipedia as a valid source, not in my wildest dreams. To me, it would be totally unprofessional and almost certain to bite me when I mistook some "fact" for truth.

But that's the point. You don't cite Wikipedia, just as you don't cite any encyclopedic text -- that's poor form. You read the Wikipedia article, and then you jump to the Wikipedia article's citations, and use *those* as a primary resource. If the article in question has dubious claims (or, in fact, claims at all) without a citation, throw up a [citations needed] on the top of the page -- takes a few seconds, helps the rest of the researching community out.

Anyway, I'm sorry I came off so confrontational. I have strong opinions on the matter of Wikipedia, but if people would rather not use it, there is no problem.

Make the research come to you, conveniently

DWSTXS

Mr Mojo Risin...

Prawn

Writing is finite,revising infinite

ishtar'sgate

living in the past

megan_d

Falling in the milk

lute

DWSTXS

Mr Mojo Risin...

lute

Paichka

The BIC-Believer

megan_d

Falling in the milk

nicolen

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

johnnysannie

zegota

Fantastic!

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

rainboy

DWSTXS

Mr Mojo Risin...

johnnysannie

Paichka

The BIC-Believer

ethinker

zegota

Fantastic!