Comments on: Is ChemSpider Dangerous for Students? http://www.chemspider.com/blog/is-chemspider-dangerous-for-students.html Building Community for Chemists Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:07:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: ChemSpider Blog » Blog Archive » Zen and the Art of Chemical Structure Databases. What is the definition of “Quality”? http://www.chemspider.com/blog/is-chemspider-dangerous-for-students.html/comment-page-1#comment-104 ChemSpider Blog » Blog Archive » Zen and the Art of Chemical Structure Databases. What is the definition of “Quality”? Wed, 16 May 2007 04:23:48 +0000 http://www.chemspider.com/blog/?p=24#comment-104 [...] poorly educating the students is an issue and certainly this concern has been raised recently in regards to the ChemSpider system. The question this leads to is about Quality. The Quality of [...] [...] poorly educating the students is an issue and certainly this concern has been raised recently in regards to the ChemSpider system. The question this leads to is about Quality. The Quality of [...]

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.chemspider.com/blog/is-chemspider-dangerous-for-students.html/comment-page-1#comment-68 David Bradley Sat, 12 May 2007 08:06:25 +0000 http://www.chemspider.com/blog/?p=24#comment-68 Wikipedia is an invaluable resource for general use and for confirming facts one may already know. Date of the Battle of Hastings. Names of the Pilgrim Fathers. That kind of thing. 99.999% of editors and journalists will tell you it is not a valid journalistic source and several editors with whom I work will not accept Wikipedia citations as valid references. It can be unreliable. In a system where anyone can edit any document or change an image, even if there is a paper trail to follow, one simply cannot rely on the "facts" presented without having at least two other sources to confirm said facts. And, if you have two other sources, why cite Wikipedia at all? Wikipedia is obviously very useful, but it, like the structure and solubility of calcium carbonate, can be fluxional, and can only act as a first stop in information gathering. It does not represent the definitive facts, unless you already know them to be true. db Wikipedia is an invaluable resource for general use and for confirming facts one may already know. Date of the Battle of Hastings. Names of the Pilgrim Fathers. That kind of thing. 99.999% of editors and journalists will tell you it is not a valid journalistic source and several editors with whom I work will not accept Wikipedia citations as valid references.

It can be unreliable. In a system where anyone can edit any document or change an image, even if there is a paper trail to follow, one simply cannot rely on the “facts” presented without having at least two other sources to confirm said facts. And, if you have two other sources, why cite Wikipedia at all?

Wikipedia is obviously very useful, but it, like the structure and solubility of calcium carbonate, can be fluxional, and can only act as a first stop in information gathering. It does not represent the definitive facts, unless you already know them to be true.

db

]]>