History papers

[Neomega]

It is odd, right now I have to write about the Ming and Qing dynasties. Because I have a due date, I am hating it, yet, if I were bored and stumbled upon something about these dynasties in 3 weeks, I would love to talk about it all day.

Also, in our class, we are somewhat limited to two books and lectures as references. I don't quite work like that, I always like to explore wikipedia. As I explore wikipedia, I keep finding vast swaths of essentially untouched history. It really pisses me off how current university culture seems to despise wikipedia, in favor of paper books, yet they have no clue how much more informative and useful it is many times than their lectures or books. Plus, there is no search function in a paper book. Sometimes finding the source page of something you read a week ago can be exasperating, and frankly I feel sourcing is in many cases a waste of time. I mean do you really need to source something like during the civil war, the North and South had different railroad gauges?

In class, if I were to raise my hand, I might get a question answered, but with wikipedia, I have a question, I click on the link. Sometimes I will find myself with 15 tabs of articles open on related topics, as I search for deeper understanding.

In addition to taking History of China (which took 6 weeks for 3500 years, and 3 weeks for 100 years... ) I am also taking the history of science. In that class, we have the option of writing a long paper on our own topic, and I am thinking about writing it on the way science and knowledge today has undergone a vast transformation, because of the internet. The professor is a cool guy and all, but he is a bit of a luddite, so I don't know how enthused he'll be about my topic.

Which brings me to my final complaint; As I go to university, I feel like so much time is wasted on traditional university courses, and indeed, taking history of science, I know what caused these courses to be traditionally required for a "rounded" education, but I feel like the time for tradition is over. I feel like the world is changing so fast, and so greatly, that old school ways are really inefficient and burdened.

 

[Dachs]

My pet historical subjects are much better documented in paper books than they are on Wikipedia, which is often factually incorrect with respect to those particular things. Arguments over stuff like that and the ethnic crap that they can get bogged down in is actually why I left the Military History WikiProject.

 

[Annex]

It is odd, right now I have to write about the Ming and Qing dynasties. Because I have a due date, I am hating it, yet, if I were bored and stumbled upon something about these dynasties in 3 weeks, I would love to talk about it all day.

Believe me, more often then not I feel the exact same way I just wrote a paper on Edvard Munch, and even though it wasnt painful I would have enjoyed learning about the subject more if I was reading on my own.

Also, in our class, we are somewhat limited to two books and lectures as references. I don't quite work like that, I always like to explore wikipedia. As I explore wikipedia, I keep finding vast swaths of essentially untouched history. It really pisses me off how current university culture seems to despise wikipedia, in favor of paper books, yet they have no clue how much more informative and useful it is many times than their lectures or books.

Eh, Wiki is ok to get links off of, but usually it doesnt go all that deep. Books are better.

Plus, there is no search function in a paper book. Sometimes finding the source page of something you read a week ago can be exasperating, and frankly I feel sourcing is in many cases a waste of time. I mean do you really need to source something like during the civil war, the North and South had different railroad gauges?

I seriously hope you are kidding.

Which brings me to my final complaint; As I go to university, I feel like so much time is wasted on traditional university courses, and indeed, taking history of science, I know what caused these courses to be traditionally required for a "rounded" education, but I feel like the time for tradition is over. I feel like the world is changing so fast, and so greatly, that old school ways are really inefficient and burdened.

I kinda feel the same way, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[Neomega]

The funny thing is, a lot of people, especially professors , will pronounce opinion as fact, I have discovered. When the see something, just one article in wikipedia, that does not jive with their opinion, or perhaps seems incomplete, they write the entire thing off.

 

[Dachs]

The funny thing is, a lot of people, especially professors , will pronounce opinion as fact, I have discovered. When the see something, just one article in wikipedia, that does not jive with their opinion, or perhaps seems incomplete, they write the entire thing off.

The problem is that Wikipedians often write opinion as fact too, and it's simply impossible to document and correct all of these errors, or even make people aware that this isn't necessarily how stuff went down. There's some very exemplary work done on Wikipedia but I'm very painfully aware of how some sections are often overlooked by the quality authors and instead are left by default to partisan hacks.

 

[Neomega]

Eh, Wiki is ok to get links off of, but usually it doesnt go all that deep. Books are better.

Of course books are better, but I already read my text books, they don't really go that deep on the subject matter themselves. Of course, when I write a paper, I usually go for an enigma, or a supposition I have, and try to back it up with fact.

I seriously hope you are kidding.

No. I have watched so much history channel, read so many articles, that I know about a gazillion facts about everything. Many times I will write something I know is true, and get a "source" or ??? from the TA's. It's liek, I am sorry *you* didn't know the North and South had different railroad gauges, but I knew that since 5th grade. You want me to source Mr. Wersiger?

I kinda feel the same way, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

So they say. funny thing is, after a professor in architecture slammed wikipedia, I wrote a long rebuttal on the professor critiques we get at the end of the quarter. It basically said, "instead of slamming wikipedia, perhaps you should find the best articles written by students, and with their permission, post them on wikipedia"

In true, corporate-state fashion, they took the idea, and this year they are stating a University of Washington wikipedia, composed of student essays approved by professors. And in true corporate-state fashion, it is not open to the public, only students.

I guess my massive amounts of roll eyes kind of show, I have a bit of disdain for some university traditions and practices.

 

[Neomega]

The problem is that Wikipedians often write opinion as fact too, and it's simply impossible to document and correct all of these errors, or even make people aware that this isn't necessarily how stuff went down. There's some very exemplary work done on Wikipedia but I'm very painfully aware of how some sections are often overlooked by the quality authors and instead are left by default to partisan hacks.

that's funny, because a friend in school showed me what happens when you try to say one of the ingredients of gorp is dried dog poop. In 35 seconds, someone had come by, and corrected it.

There may be a lot of incorrect opinions, but I usually am not afraid if I see something that says, for example "The First Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen British North American colonies that met on September 5, 1774, in Philadelphia Pennsylvania, ", I have pretty solid confidence, that that is true.

 

[Dachs]

that's funny, because a friend in school showed me what happens when you try to say one of the ingredients of gorp is dried dog poop. In 35 seconds, someone had come by, and corrected it.

There's a difference between something like poop that a bot can easily correct and something like the support of an essentially discredited historical school of thought. The former is easy to program to check for. The latter looks nice on the surface but in reality has been disregarded by serious scholarship for years.

And I'll give you a ludicrous anecdote to indicate what I mean. A few years ago some friends and I were researching the German Silvestertag holiday and one of us, an Indian-descended dude named Mohit, decided that it would be pretty funny to change around the (short) Wikipedia article on Pope Sylvester I. This occurred during the winter, when Silvestertag takes place, and rapidly developed from the original premise, that of including a "sage named Mohit" in the article who had met the Pope on his way to the Council of Nikaia. By spring Mohit had acquired his own article, which reached some 5,000 words in length (added to by classmates of ours) and included such stories as creating the Gupta Empire and personally being responsible (yes, in that way) for the birth of Athanasios. The article was only removed in the summer when Mohit attempted to edit a picture from another article and reimport it such that it could be used on the Sage Mohit article.

If pages don't get a lot of traffic, and stuff is either sufficiently outlandish or sufficiently involved to escape bots, it may take a long time to correct. That's just how it goes.

There may be a lot of incorrect opinions, but I usually am not afraid if I see something that says, for example "The First Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen British North American colonies that met on September 5, 1774, in Philadelphia Pennsylvania, ", I have pretty solid confidence, that that is true.

And I am sure that articles that get a lot of traffic like ones about the Continental Congress would have that sort of thing.

 

[Tee Kay]

Wikipedia IMHO is quite a reliable source and I always check the facts with at least one other source. Some articles are biased but then again which history text isn't?

 

[Neomega]

There's a difference between something like poop that a bot can easily correct and something like the support of an essentially discredited historical school of thought. The former is easy to program to check for. The latter looks nice on the surface but in reality has been disregarded by serious scholarship for years.

And I am sure that articles that get a lot of traffic like ones about the Continental Congress would have that sort of thing.

It seems like the complaint you have, (as do most professors) is not that the facts are wrong, but the opinions, or schools of thought are wrong. Many times, I see on wikipedia, that many schools of thought are presented. I also read somewhere once, that as far as base facts are concerned things like dates, GDP, chemical weights, lineages, pictures and captions, etc, etc... wikipedia is as often correct as Encyclopedia Brittanica. (sorry, no source )

Also, it is frustrating (i have only had one class that actually accepted electronic submissions) to have to source something, when I am so used to forums etc, where links are just so much more handy.

 

[Aleenik]

Wikipedia IMHO is quite a reliable source and I always check the facts with at least one other source. Some articles are biased but then again which history text isn't?

Id have to agree with your post, Wikipedia is a very clean and well put togetherher website and everything is organized nicely in the articles(usually) so I almost always use it, besides they have sources usually to check the article against, however those sources which could in turn have sources which have sources could all be biased as history itself is well...biased.

 

[Dachs]

It seems like the complaint you have, (as do most professors) is not that the facts are wrong, but the opinions, or schools of thought are wrong. Many times, I see on wikipedia, that many schools of thought are presented. I also read somewhere once, that as far as base facts are concerned things like dates, GDP, chemical weights, lineages, pictures and captions, etc, etc... wikipedia is as often correct as Encyclopedia Brittanica. (sorry, no source )

I don't use Britannica, either, FWIW. Encyclopedic knowledge is inherently insufficient for somebody like myself who likes to go as in depth into a subject as he can when he gets the impulse to do so.

And in some fields, opinions and facts are awfully hard to distinguish. Too, the school of thought to which one subscribes may mean the "creative" omission of certain facts, which may be rather important to the discussion. Mostly here I'm thinking of the charlie-fox that is the Wikipedia section on the Greco-Baktrian kingdom.

 

[Aleenik]

To the OP I feel the same way I am doing thing on World War 1 atm(high school) and i am reading tabs on italy france uk relations of pope to world in WW1, etc..all things I can find on WW1 im enjoying reading..yet..now I have a really big project on it and I despise to do it!..Iv learned the stuff I shouldnt have to do it again in a boring way!

 

[Neomega]

There's a difference between something like poop that a bot can easily correct and something like the support of an essentially discredited historical school of thought. The former is easy to program to check for. The latter looks nice on the surface but in reality has been disregarded by serious scholarship for years.

And I'll give you a ludicrous anecdote to indicate what I mean. A few years ago some friends and I were researching the German Silvestertag holiday and one of us, an Indian-descended dude named Mohit, decided that it would be pretty funny to change around the (short) Wikipedia article on Pope Sylvester I. This occurred during the winter, when Silvestertag takes place, and rapidly developed from the original premise, that of including a "sage named Mohit" in the article who had met the Pope on his way to the Council of Nikaia. By spring Mohit had acquired his own article, which reached some 5,000 words in length (added to by classmates of ours) and included such stories as creating the Gupta Empire and personally being responsible (yes, in that way) for the birth of Athanasios. The article was only removed in the summer when Mohit attempted to edit a picture from another article and reimport it such that it could be used on the Sage Mohit article.

this reminds me of the German arguments against glass architecture. Many Germans were convinced, glass skyscrapers, and even telephone poles were an impossible dream, because, they argued, vandals would destroy everything.

Yes, there is the odd window smashed by vandals every now and then, (and even more odd telegraph pole vandalism) but glass skyscrapers, like wikipedia, are by and large respected 99.99% of the time. There may be an odd prank/vandal every now and then, and on deeper history issues, people should be consulting texts more than wikipedia, simply because wikipedia does not have graduate level depth, but for undergraduate level subjects, like "chinese History", I mean, c'mon. It wont be long before somebody notices and edits out that the last Ming emperor did not fly away in a spinning chrome saucer. The glass on the skyscraper will be replaced.

 

[Dachs]

this reminds me of the German arguments against glass architecture. Many Germans were convinced, glass skyscrapers, and even telephone poles were an impossible dream, because, they argued, vandals would destroy everything.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I think Wikipedia is an awesome project, after all I worked (with varying degrees of involvement) on Wikipedia articles from 2005 to 2008, and I still think it's one of the best resources on the Internet today. I'm not attempting to indict Wikipedian sourcing systems, or the basic nature of an encyclopedia to which everybody contributes. What I am trying to say is that I can definitely see why a professor would object to not sourcing or sourcing from Wikipedia, even on relatively low-argument articles like what the railroad gauges in the United States and the rebellious states were. Hell, that's why they add in the sources at the bottom of the page. If there are factual or interpretational errors within the information you acquire, you can assign it to the proper culprit.

 

[Neomega]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I think Wikipedia is an awesome project, after all I worked (with varying degrees of involvement) on Wikipedia articles from 2005 to 2008, and I still think it's one of the best resources on the Internet today. I'm not attempting to indict Wikipedian sourcing systems, or the basic nature of an encyclopedia to which everybody contributes. What I am trying to say is that I can definitely see why a professor would object to not sourcing or sourcing from Wikipedia, even on relatively low-argument articles like what the railroad gauges in the United States and the rebellious states were. Hell, that's why they add in the sources at the bottom of the page. If there are factual or interpretational errors within the information you acquire, you can assign it to the proper culprit.

It feels a tad dishonest to me, to source the source from wikipedia. I honestly don't know how one would source, if they used a quote, that itself was sourced from a different book. I would suspect, at graduate level, it is a no-no.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess there's no equivalent to pubmed for history? In biological sciences, we have a huge database of research papers, and scholars put a one-paragraph summary of their findings on a search engine. So if I need a fact, I can find it pretty quickly

 

[Verbose]

I guess there's no equivalent to pubmed for history?

Perhaps Jstor.

 

[TDK]

Is it just me, or isn't it strange that we have university students even contemplating sourcing their info with encyclopaedias - wikipaedia or other?

I would not source a piece of information like that on the railroad breadth at all, it would be easy for a reader to check that information herself.
I would source a specific view on what railroad breadth meant to the prosecution of the war, to help the reader find the relevant information.

TDK

 

[Neomega]

Is it just me, or isn't it strange that we have university students even contemplating sourcing their info with encyclopaedias - wikipaedia or other?

I would not source a piece of information like that on the railroad breadth at all, it would be easy for a reader to check that information herself.
I would source a specific view on what railroad breadth meant to the prosecution of the war, to help the reader find the relevant information.

TDK

well for one, a wikipedia article can be quite lengthy. For example, I think the article on the Ming dynasty alone is about 10,000 - 20,000 words, and that is not counting all the links that you can follow for further insight, many of them another 5 - 10,000 words. I wouldn't be surprise dif all the topics on China stretch beyond 1,000,000 words. A regular encyclopedia does not have near that kind of power.

Also, I don't source concepts, concepts are my own, given in lecture, or spelled out in the book, sometimes, but in history, usually facts and chronological events are given, and it is up to the reader to draw concepts and insight. I use sourcing more for quotes, when arguing the intentions of rulers or feelings of the people in situations.

Furthermore, for undergrad classes, there is no need to look up more books. In upper level classes, we are simply given more books to read, but I still use wikipedia for refreshers.