You should see the struggle I have
forcing my twelve year old to use an encyclopaedia or in fact any reference source whose name doesn't start with. Google or Wiki
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Thu 4 Nov 2010, 20:20, 5 replies)

Rohypnol!
Wait, I only read up to "forcing my twelve year old" and hit reply.
(CactusZack Shaved his coin purse on, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 20:35, closed)

why?
is it better to depend on an outdated source printed for financial gain by a sole author, than a constantly-updated and globally-critiqued source written collaboratively by many of the world's leading experts in their fields?

Unless you want your child to develop the notion that if it's in print, it must be true, and grow up to become a Daily Mail reader.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 21:55, closed)

Do you believe everything you read on Wikipedia?

(Pie of Meat ___°¬¯O¯____\o/_____/\_,____Y¯¯Y, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 22:00, closed)

I make a point of looking at the sources
but I've no reason to disbelieve it for any reason that I would trust a printed encyclopedia
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 22:04, closed)

Really?
Did i say he couldn't use web based resources? It is a bit naive to rely on any single source isn't it?

He doesn't use multiple sources to cross reference assuming that whatever he finds first and fastest on the web must be the truth but also fails to realise that not all information is found on the web so isn't developing and critical resource and researching skills.

The manpower used in researching proper reference documents would actually make me slightly more likely to trust a source that has been through an extensive publishing and editing process by professionals, maybe it's me that's old fashioned.

And I will treat the daily mail comment with the contempt it deserves. I fail to see the connection between doing a job properly and a mindless rag masquerading as a newspaper.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Fri 5 Nov 2010, 8:06, closed)