You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Principles of Scientific Research in Egyptology
I would not be too rude to Wikipedia. Some of the articles written there have actually been written by world experts and are actually pretty good and pretty accurate. Of course, this is not the case for anything and one must be careful (like for instance, by trying to double check things).
Know the source to be ful of care. Indeed my friend makes sense. As well if something is not the case for anything does that make it a case for everything? Also howgood is pretty and how pretty is accurate . Little euphemism there for some light laughter.
Great post
Thank you kindly
I am sorry, but I didn't get it. Do you mind rephrasing it? :D
Hmmm .... if you remember the one thing you were supposed to remember you'll know the other two. This is how you always know the truth of the source. It's all in the trinity or as man calls it the atom of three parts but indeed fundamental basis of all is to remember only one thing.
Thank you kindly.
Hey, Wikipedia is cool. I know that there are a lot of experts, of course. But most scientists refuse to accept this as an adequate resource, because the given information is sometimes not verified or even properly cited. Everyone can rework an article when he/she wants. But I admit, wiki sometimes is good for fast checking some common facts.
The point is that good Wikipedia information is referenced on wikipedia. With some efforts, it is easy to trace back the source. My students can use wikipedia, but wikipedia cannot be the only resource.