MLA format, APA format, Turabian -- yes, that’s a real word -- Chicago, CBE, AMA: All of them are different ways of telling the reader where you got a certain piece of information. Each of them so confusing that most normal people couldn’t get them right until a website was invented to do it for them.
That’s why I like being a journalist: You simply say, “according to” so-and-so and throw in the name of whatever they wrote or wherever they said it, and you’re good. No muss, no fuss, and nobody gets sued -- or a C on their term paper.
I mention all of this because as you read my Unbroken Raina Thoughts you’re going to see a lot of referenced citations done in a fairly relaxed way. Sometimes I’ll tell you the author as I write, sometimes I won’t. It just depends on whether or not I think it makes it more readable. My thinking is, if I bore you to death you’re not going to learn anything, so I really try to avoid that.
What I’ll always do, however, is put a little number that leads to another number at the bottom of the writing that shows what website and page I took it from. That way, you know I’m not just making crap up. I kind of borrowed this format from Wikipedia, so I’m pretty sure it’s OK to do it that way.
Indeed, you’ll find I use a lot of things from Wikipedia -- and the New York Times, and The Huffington Post, and other popular forms of internet media. Conversely, there are sites you’ll hardly ever find me using, like Yahoo Answers, and I have reasons for that as well.
I’ll say right off I tend to get the bulk of my mass media information from what some people might consider the “liberal media.” Now, we could argue for days over whether or not the New York Times is liberal, but that would be pointless. Mainly because one of the the New York Times’ own editors admits it’s liberal:
“‘Is ‘The Times’ a Liberal Newspaper?’...I mean that is obviously something people feel about ‘The Times,’ and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that ‘The Times’ reflects its readership, its community. It’s an urban paper; it’s a New York City paper. I mean that’s a reasonable criticism, I think.”(2)
In other words because New York City tends to be fairly liberal, it’s newspaper likely will be as well. As someone who writes in support of the LGBT community, one that is also fairly liberal, it’s not surprising that much of what I write about would be found in the New York Times.
What most people do not dispute, however, is the Times use of facts. As a newspaper that literally corrects every mistake it makes, even people that hate the Times usually concede the data they use is accurate. It’s rather like the math teacher you hate: You might rather have multiple root canals than attend her class -- but you know she always has her facts straight.
Indeed, the other site I turn to frequently, The Huffington Post, is so respected by conservative types that they reach out to Post writers to make sure their conservative views are accurately aired. “Despite its liberal leanings, Republican (politicians) and aides have begun heading to The Huffington Post to talk up their views.”(3)
Far less trusted -- at least it should be -- is Yahoo Answers. And if you want to understand why, read Yahoo Answers own Yahoo Answers page about Yahoo Answers (Gehusenteit): “You need points to ask a question but you can quickly earn the points back when you resolve your question and by giving answers that are picked as the best answer.”(4)
In other words, people gain privileges just because they have a knack for saying things people agree with. I’m not the only one who thinks that’s a problem.
“(Yahoo Answers is) a complete disaster as a traditional reference tool. It encourages bad research habits, rewards people who post things that aren't true, and frequently labels factual errors as correct information,” says one noted librarian.(5)
Does this mean every answer on Yahoo Answers is wrong? Absolutely not. “Often, a correct answer will be hiding somewhere on an Answers page, only to be obscured by a tide of wrong or off-topic material that never gets erased.”(5)
That’s what happens when “right” and “wrong” is based on a voting public that may know nothing about the subject. Returning to the math teacher: Just because she speaks well and writes clearly -- all my math teachers did -- doesn’t mean she knows anything about European History. (Except for Mrs. Hodel. She knew EVERYTHING.)
This brings me to the aforementioned Wikipedia, another media website people tend to hold in disdain. I know in the school where I teach many teachers consider using Wikipedia tantamount to getting your facts off the bathroom wall.
They cite examples where Wikipedia has been incredibly wrong. Whether it was the entry about David Beckham being a Chinese goalkeeper in the 18th century or Sienna Miller posing nude, or a number of other things, they won’t allow students to even look at Wikipedia as a resource.(6)
This is 20th century thinking.
In 2005 the British journal “Nature” conducted a peer review of scientific articles on Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Reviewers checked for errors while not being 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.(7)
Was Wikipedia perfect? No, the study found an average of 3.86 factual errors per article. But it also found 2.92 errors on average in the Encyclopedia Britannica.(8)
In the end, the survey concluded that the often embarrassing major mistakes found in Wikipedia “are the exception rather than the rule."(8)
Does this mean people should just wholesale cite Wikipedia? Nope, and I promise I’ll try not to do that much. More often than not, I use WIkipedia to guide me to the right resources. (There’s those little numbers again.)
No less than a Harvard professor agrees with this approach: “You may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts… The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic.”(9)
That’s right, Harvard. I can live with that -- and hopefully you can too.
References
1) Actually, I do: Cormac McCarthy’s, “The Road.” Use punctuation for God’s sake! Just because something wiped out the population doesn’t mean punctuation had to go with it.
2) Accuracy in Media: NY Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has a Liberal Bias [Video]
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/ny-times-public-editor-admits-paper-has-a-liberal-bias-video/
3) Republicans flock to The Huffington Post
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22861.html
4) Yahoo Answers: Overview: How does the scoring system work and what are the points worth?
http://help.yahoo.com/l/mye/yahoo/answers/overview/overview-209760.html
5) Slate.com: A Librarian's Worst Nightmare
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2007/12/a_librarians_worst_nightmare.html
6) PC World: The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders
http://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/The_15_Biggest_Wikipedia_Blunders.html
7) BBC News: Wikipedia survives research test
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
8) CNET: Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
9) Harvard Guide to Using Sources: What's Wrong with Wikipedia?
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376