[Tmir]

Now I understand starting a paper by googling it first, looking up its wiki page... and granted a lot of the subjects I learn now are not google friendly, I can usually find sparse articles relating to the same idea; peer reviewed is hard to find... but the thing that bothers me is
I'm taking some third year genetics and pharmacology classes and the thinking seems to be going if its good enough for wikipedia its good enough for a lecture, the main points and I suppose this lends credit to wikipedia, but I pay thousands to get lectured by these academics, bonus I don't need a text, and the questions asked to be graded are beyond wikipedia scope.... but is it too much to ask for a little originality?

[trekkin']

Huh...they are talking about eliminating text books in the public schools in Rhode Island. I am very suspicious of this. At least, in general, textbooks are reliable sources of information. You can criticize them for leaning one way or another on issues, omitting important data or even rewriting history. But...the interweb is so....random. I know there are reliable sites and all of that, but there is something unique about turning the pages of a book.

When I went back to college (I finally finished my degree in 2007) Wikipedia was not allowed as a source. Although, imagine...as a professor, reading the same general papers over and over again...I bet you could site the notations without even looking to see if it is in the bibliography. I mean, how much original research really goes on?

I do have to say that Wikipedia is enormously helpful to gain direction on a subject. It is also very nice that odd things can be added to a wiki page and little known information can be gleaned from that. I have added a few bits of things here and there, myself. So...the internet is helpful in developing newer and maybe more current or opportune arguments.