Videogame footage used in real war documentary

[BoringSupreez]

What happened to research and sources cited and all that jazz and opera?

Google and Wikipedia, that's what happened. Why do real research when you can ctrl+c, ctrl+v?

[ATARI800XLfan]

What happened to research and sources cited and all that jazz and opera?

Google and Wikipedia, that's what happened. Why do real research when you can ctrl+c, ctrl+v?

What is wrong with Wikipedia. I use it for my college papers, plus in a survey done by England's top college, were they compared certain topics between Wikipedia and the encyclopedia's they used Wikipedia was just as accurate. Yep Wiki was just as accurate as the official British encyclopedia.

[Ziggy]

So many times though when I've watch a documentary on TV, they show footage of something happening, going along with what the narrator is saying. But most of the time, it's only similar footage and not THE actual footage of the event being explained. Not that they claim it's actual footage though.

The news does this all the time, by the way. The news will use generic footage when they have a story but no video. This was made blatantly obvious to me when there was a stabbing at a party down the block from me. The story was on the news, but the footage showed houses with telephone poles. We don't have poles on my block, it's all underground wiring.

[fastbilly1]

Link to the footage for those outside of the UK:

The video on the Kotaku page worked ok for me FWIW.

It would not load for me.

[BoringSupreez]

What happened to research and sources cited and all that jazz and opera?

Google and Wikipedia, that's what happened. Why do real research when you can ctrl+c, ctrl+v?

What is wrong with Wikipedia. I use it for my college papers, plus in a survey done by England's top college, were they compared certain topics between Wikipedia and the encyclopedia's they used Wikipedia was just as accurate. Yep Wiki was just as accurate as the official British encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a good source for papers, because anyone can edit it. Even if it's usually right, there's no guarantee. I've come across several pages before with information I know was wrong.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Wikipedia is not a good source for papers, because anyone can edit it. Even if it's usually right, there's no guarantee. I've come across several pages before with information I know was wrong.

Which is why, as any good researcher should know, you cross check several sources when finding information.

[BoringSupreez]

Wikipedia is not a good source for papers, because anyone can edit it. Even if it's usually right, there's no guarantee. I've come across several pages before with information I know was wrong.

Which is why, as any good researcher should know, you cross check several sources when finding information.

Which I do. I just leave Wikipedia out of it.

[Ack]

What happened to research and sources cited and all that jazz and opera?

Google and Wikipedia, that's what happened. Why do real research when you can ctrl+c, ctrl+v?

What is wrong with Wikipedia. I use it for my college papers, plus in a survey done by England's top college, were they compared certain topics between Wikipedia and the encyclopedia's they used Wikipedia was just as accurate. Yep Wiki was just as accurate as the official British encyclopedia.

As BoringSupreez mentioned, Wikipedia is editable by anyone, so certain pages have ended up turning into ideological flame wars. The Scientology page used to be a particular favorite from what I've heard, and I've found information on some obscure topics with obvious jokes written in. I once found an article on it about a video game which had apparently been developed by Teen Wolf, starring Michael J. Fox, as opposed to Wolf Team, it's actual creators.

That said, I've also learned that certain universities and academic fields have had professors and higher-level graduate students form teams to verify and improve the information available, so some of what you'll find on Wikipedia is professionally handled and considered by experts in fields pertaining to that subject. Not all of course, but some. Corporations and government offices will also do this for pages related to them, though there have been episodes of corporate shenanigans to downplay crises or edit controversial or negative material pertaining to them.

Take it for what it is.

[Breetai]

...though there have been episodes of corporate shenanigans to downplay crises or edit controversial or negative material pertaining to them...

The Mormon page...

[J T]

That said, I've also learned that certain universities and academic fields have had professors and higher-level graduate students form teams to verify and improve the information available, so some of what you'll find on Wikipedia is professionally handled and considered by experts in fields pertaining to that subject. Not all of course, but some. Corporations and government offices will also do this for pages related to them, though there have been episodes of corporate shenanigans to downplay crises or edit controversial or negative material pertaining to them.

Take it for what it is.

This. Nobody cites Wikipedia in academia because it is modifiable, but everyone uses it. It's usually a fantastic source for finding a good overview on a topic. It's where I usually start looking for information when I begin research in a new area because you can often get a better no-nonsense overview of a topic from Wikipedia than you can from scientific journals. Often times it's even better than a scientific review article (my other major starting point for learning a new topic). Of course, anyone who does research though, knows they are going to have to cross reference and find multiple sources to validate a point. And obviously, when you want empirical support, you're going to go to the source and find the journal articles that actually describe the studies. Wikipedia is great though and a surprisingly good resource, particularly if you're looking for topics that the average layperson isn't even going to know enough about to search for becaues then you usually just find other professionals that have edited the wiki.