I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking. But there are plenty of outdated or outright rubbish books in a university library. After all, it's a library. There would be no way for librarians to...
I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking. But there are plenty of outdated or outright rubbish books in a university library. After all, it's a library. There would be no way for librarians to vet (or even read) every book or journal they buy, across every academic field.
We rely on experts to tell us what's what. No, scratch that. We usually rely on teachers, journalists, textbook authors, and the like to tell us what the experts think in terms we understand. Sometimes they get it wrong.
I wish I could find the comments I've read in r/AskHistorians about how to find a good history book for some particular question. No simple rule works there.
But maybe there are situations where we under-use the academic resources available to us, because a web search is easier? Particularly if you don't know how to go about doing an academic search. So, a rule in a college course that you have to use the library makes sense.
Yes, a lot of articles are pretty terrible, but I’m thinking of the better science reporters like Ed Yong. It’s often impractical to read scientific papers yourself, and a good science reporter...
Yes, a lot of articles are pretty terrible, but I’m thinking of the better science reporters like Ed Yong. It’s often impractical to read scientific papers yourself, and a good science reporter will talk to other scientists to see what they think of a new paper. I think they play an essential role in informing the public.
I also don't quite get what you're looking for here, but in 2021 any moron can print a book. Some books have no credibility whatsoever, while some websites are so trustworthy they become...
I also don't quite get what you're looking for here, but in 2021 any moron can print a book. Some books have no credibility whatsoever, while some websites are so trustworthy they become universal, undisputed references. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great example.
The media where a content is housed is not enough to ascertain its credibility. It's more complex than that. We need to look at the history of the source, the authors, institutions, and interests that are behind it, as well as the social proof provided by people we trust.
I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking. But there are plenty of outdated or outright rubbish books in a university library. After all, it's a library. There would be no way for librarians to vet (or even read) every book or journal they buy, across every academic field.
We rely on experts to tell us what's what. No, scratch that. We usually rely on teachers, journalists, textbook authors, and the like to tell us what the experts think in terms we understand. Sometimes they get it wrong.
I wish I could find the comments I've read in r/AskHistorians about how to find a good history book for some particular question. No simple rule works there.
But maybe there are situations where we under-use the academic resources available to us, because a web search is easier? Particularly if you don't know how to go about doing an academic search. So, a rule in a college course that you have to use the library makes sense.
This one is great for current affairs and investigation, but the current state of science reporting often does more harm than good.
Yes, a lot of articles are pretty terrible, but I’m thinking of the better science reporters like Ed Yong. It’s often impractical to read scientific papers yourself, and a good science reporter will talk to other scientists to see what they think of a new paper. I think they play an essential role in informing the public.
I also don't quite get what you're looking for here, but in 2021 any moron can print a book. Some books have no credibility whatsoever, while some websites are so trustworthy they become universal, undisputed references. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great example.
The media where a content is housed is not enough to ascertain its credibility. It's more complex than that. We need to look at the history of the source, the authors, institutions, and interests that are behind it, as well as the social proof provided by people we trust.