- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
That would apply to ANY source, paper or internet.Depending on the author, a book is acceptable. Magazine, no.
That would apply to ANY source, paper or internet.
What, specifically, makes a magazine any less reliable than a book or an internet article?Not really. Some source mediums are simply not acceptable, no matter who they claim wrote the article, like magazines.
Note my edit above.
I agree with this. When I see some people get all indignant over having a book cited I sense it's more to do with the fact that they can't remain in their recliner and click on a link, and that disputing the source would involve actual work on their part.Both are acceptable sources since both books and magazine articles can relay statistical, empirical, anecdotal and other information that can be used to support an argument. Just like all sources, the veracity of the arguments made in the book or magazine article are subject to scrutiny, but there isn't anything inherently untrustworthy about either.
What, specifically, makes a magazine any less reliable than a book or an internet article?
Is a book or magazine a valid source?
You say something, someone requests your source for said information, you provide a book or magazine as your source. If a book you might even provide an Amazon or Barnes & Noble link. For a magazine, of course you provide which issue. (It does need to be reasonably obtainable)
Is that a valid source?
I say it is, and eff you if it doesn't satisfy your laziness-inspired desire for a clickable link. You wanted a source and you got one. Get over it. The ball's now in your court.
Ah. It falls into place. You're one of the lazy people who needs to rely on a clickable link. Got'cha.One can find critiques of a book, not so of a magazine article.
Ah. It falls into place. You're one of the lazy people who needs to rely on a clickable link. Got'cha.
Carry on.
Both are acceptable sources since both books and magazine articles can relay statistical, empirical, anecdotal and other information that can be used to support an argument. Just like all sources, the veracity of the arguments made in the book or magazine article are subject to scrutiny, but there isn't anything inherently untrustworthy about either.
That would apply to ANY source, paper or internet.
One can find critiques of a book, not so of a magazine article.
Does no one else in this tread understand the importance of outside reviews and that magazine articles have none?
Wtf, did anyone in this thread go to college?
Actually, yes, there are magazine articles that get reviewed, critiqued, debated.
Well, it depends. There are a good number of professional journals which only have peer reviewed content.
Actually, yes, there are magazine articles that get reviewed, critiqued, debated. Just depends on the magazine and the topic of the article. Similarly with books. Not all are critiqued. For example, John Grisham's book "The Innocent Man" - it was NOT a fiction book; it seemed to have a firm grasp on the facts in the cases it presented, and it certainly re-confirmed my impressions (from many articles and books and whatnot) that justice is not always fair in our country.
However, I'm not sure I saw a lot of critiques of it, either confirming or disputing it. Maybe I just missed them.
An academic (and I suppose professional, whatever that means) journal is not a magazine.
Well, we call them magazines, or at least we do in my profession, and that's essentially what they are.
Does no one else in this tread understand the importance of outside reviews and that magazine articles have none?
Wtf, did anyone in this thread go to college?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?