What strikes me in this discussion is that... it ignores an opportunity to encourage students to learn what a good source is and what isn't. Given rules doesn't work, because when they rules disappear, many students return to the forbidden behaviors. Instead of making rules, I encourage students to use appropriate sources and I grade them in that regard along with every other aspect of their work. That way they learn, over the period a course of learning to discern good sources from bad sources. Wikipedia is neither a good, nor a bad source, but for my courses, it and other encyclopedias are fairly inadequate because the 'facts of the matter' that encyclopedias provide are not really what I want students to focus on, I want them to focus on arguments, problems, and issues, and those are usually best exemplified in scholarly literatures, and not oft found in any detail in encyclopedias. anyway, this is my opinion: arguments about wikipedia are moot in the face of arguments in favor teaching students to discern the relevancy of any given material for any given project. On Dec 4, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Ken Friedman wrote: jeremy hunsinger jhuns@vt.edu www.cddc.vt.edu jeremy.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki