Did you know that UCF is home to the
Self disclosure time: it makes me really happy when I get to overtly play video/computer games at work. How very exciting then that Wikipedia links to four different computer games developed by FIEA cohorts. However, with every silver lining there is a fateful flaw and I discovered that it would take an hour to download the file. My attention span doesn’t allow for waiting an hour so I continued clicking on my merry way.
While my fingers manipulate the digital opportunities, in the back of my mind I am trying to develop a presentation for one of my classes. The topic: glocalization. Thirteen key strokes later and I am reading the Wikipedia page on “glocalization.” The definition offered agrees with the academic definitions that I have read and two of my in-class readings are cited, so with growing confidence my eyes roam down the page to the notes and external links sections. So I immediately copy all the text from Wikipedia and paste it into my paper. There, I am finished. NOT! (Gratuitous 80s verbiage).
For one, that would be plagiarism, which is a great way to assassinate your academic and ethical credibility. Secondly, Wikipedia is a good sounding board but it is a lousy final authority. The information on Wikipedia only serves to verify that my synthesis of my research (using academic articles and texts) is on target. Third, the scope of the Wikipedia information doesn’t even begin to address the dimensions of the glocalization project I am putting together.
I’ve been slogging through some Roland Robertson, his nearly unreadable book has drained precious hours from my life, so I click the hotlink to his Wikipedia page, hoping against the odds that I will find some clarification. Thwarted again, the information provided here is incomplete and fragmented.
Now, so far, none of the information I have come across has been inaccurate. Well, you may be petulantly pouting, why then is Wikipedia not a good source? Beyond the incomplete, fragmented, contradictory, and occasionally flaming information available on Wikipedia – it is also just plain lazy. Research at the collegiate level is supposed to reflect at least an inkling of original thought. And I hate to break it to you, but original thought only comes after original research. Regurgitating lines of inquiry that you have ‘discovered’ on Wikipedia doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance of approaching original research. The second question that is possibly bouncing through your cranium is, how can I do original research? I’m not going to write a book I just need information for my project.
Original research means finding the obvious sources and developing an original line of inquiry. For example, glocalization is my topic, but I want to study glocalization through the paradigm of texts and technology. By combining my research on glocalization and texts and technology I have developed a unique line of inquiry, but one that still needs to be refined. I caught an article in the Orlando Sentinel last week about the race to build a children’s hospital in
So remember, using Wikipedia in your academic papers is a lot like taking a set of clothes on a hanger out to the movies as your date. You can do it, but it would work out a lot better if that set of clothes was filled out with something more substantial.
Computer monkeying yours,
Grad Student Christine
cbatson@mail.ucf.edu
0 comments:
Post a Comment