Upon a little more serious thought, and a conversation with a good friend, I may have to retract my previous statement about physically published material as the primary source of research material. There can be plenty of reasons for online material to be just as helpful, or which can at least point to other sources that may be as helpful. If anything, wandering around on the internet may help one discover many different views, ideas, opinions - and some good pages can cite references and sources.
Personally speaking? Whenever I did research in any of my classes during my undergraduate years, I started with using the internet. I did keyword searches on electronic journals, pulled out relevant articles and printed them out. I did keyword searches and looked at the electronic catalog that listed the books (physical and otherwise), to see what was available in print form. And then moved over to the library. And yes, I did a Google Search too, to see what came up. I think it really depends on what you're researching or studying, whether you should emphasize one medium over another, and either way, both are going to be prominent areas of your search.
I would love to hear what others think about this. :) And by all means, prove me wrong if you believe that is the case!
The Web for Research: Another Perspective
Sunday, May 24, 2009
at
12:40 PM
Posted In
Digital Radiation: Technology and Web 2.0
| |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A major difference between the internet and print is that it is much easier to publish online than it is in print. This doesn't mean that there is more peer review in print, or that anything in print is somehow more credible a source than something online. Actually, in computer science, the opposite may be true; the largest, most successful examples of peer-reviewed code come from the open source ecology, many / most of which would not be possible without the internet.
The web is a medium (actually, a platform for several media). Print apologists seem to get immediately defensive about the web, and fire off the usual concoction of myth and rumor about wikipedia as a defense :)
Wouldn't it be better to figure out how to using the web to enhance the work of librarians, and make research easier and / or more powerful?
This is a good example: http://www.wolframalpha.com/
The web appears to be a far more accessible source of information, in any case.
Actually, it was kind of funny. Just a while ago I did a wikipedia search on the French mini-series adaptation of "The Count of Monte Cristo" and some interesting character decided to provide a mock version of the imdb entry for the same. When I checked the same wikipedia article the next day, it was changed into something much more accurate.
And yes, of course, the mock article did not provide references. So I guess that's one thing to look out for.
So as far as credibility goes, it still goes without saying that you should cross-reference, right?
I am also enjoying Wolfram Alpha's resources as I type this :) Thanks, Dave!