Constant Content

I'm not sure who to list as source when the info is on a blog. In one case the blog article gave the original source so I went to that expansive national website but couldn't find that particular reference. I just didn't use that one.

In another case, a national council for this particular matter has a site. On that site they list various articles with info about their product under a heading of News. The article then may be on a blog, which may or may not have a person's name attached to it, which then references an organization whose site features numerous authors. I spend so much time following the clues to the original source that my head spins.

Another question. When I find info on Wikipedia it may have the source listed with a footnote. But when it doesn't, can Wikipedia be used as a source? I wouldn't think so as the info may or may not be accurate. But they are a wealth of info.

Thanks in advance for direction here. I tend to be meticulous about crediting the correct source but haven't had much experience writing using research on www.

The only article on Wikipedia my professors ever acknowledged as accurate was my Organic Chem professor who said their article on IR spectroscopy was accurate. My medical bacteria professor is a contributor, so I'm sure he'd say his articles are accurate. :P

If you're writing health, my suggestion is MayoClinic or Merck.com (Merck Manual) for reference. Both have a ton of info and Merck is the reference that is on every med professor and doctor's bookshelf. It has anything and everything available as far as health is concerned.

Also, it helps to write what you know. I don't know about anyone else but I think of ideas while I'm working out. Like..I'll see something and think about a question about it. If you write about something you know, then you might need a few references here and there to help with organization, but you can write pretty easily. I have written news type stuff, but it takes too long for me.

I'm kinda new, so people will correct me if I'm wrong, but facts are not an issue here. You can claim purple elephants are real and as long as you put it in a grammatically correct article, it will pass. The facts are on your shoulders, and any buyer who is an expert in the field will know if you're BSing.

Thanks Lysis,
I agree with the "write what you know" theory but was trying to branch out a little. Thanks for the reference tips. Afraid BSing isn't my style.

Okay, here's the 'correcting you if you're wrong' post: I wouldn't say that facts aren't an issue on CC as long as what you write is grammatically correct. While it's not Ed's job to fact check each article, he knows BS when he sees it and is in tune with questionable content. If he sees a statement that is questionable or should be cited, he'll kick the article back to you because it needs to be cited properly. Facts ARE important. I'll say it again: Facts ARE important.

Lysis's other advice is good - MayoClinic and Mereck are good, well-respected sources of medical information.

Here's a tip for finding credible info. If something on a blog sparks your interest, then go into Google's "advanced" search options and restrict your search to .gov sites. For example, if you want credible info to quote about the latest health supplement, see what .gov sites have to say about it. You may find an FDA study or congressional bill (or tons of other information posted on government cites) addressing your topic. Instead of quoting Joe's blog, you can say, "According to the FDA, blah blah blah."

I do not recommend using or citing Wikipedia. After all, anyone can contribute and edit Wikipedia. What may be correct today may be BS tomorrow. Wikipedia's fine for getting an idea or following a trail of sources, but take it for what it is: user generated content.

If you cannot find the original report or source, you might say something like, "As reported in Time Magazine's June 2009 issue, the FDA's latest study on health supplements found that XYZ causes cancer in lab rats." (Of course, that would have had to have been reported in Time Magazine, but you get what I mean. That's better than "Joe at Joe's blog thinks that XYZ is dangerous.")

And besides, purple elephants ARE real! I know this because the Wikipedia entry was really well written. ;)

Yeah, I guess that came out wrong. I didn't mean that you can just throw anything, but that it's your responsibility to make sure your writing is accurate. And I guess I'll add a topic of purple elephants on my list of articles. :P

Also, to add to the google tip, just type in your phrase and add site:*.gov or site:*.edu to find resources and filter all those affiliate/blog sites.

Thank you both. References/advice are great. How do you know there was a purple elephant in the refrigerator? By his purple foootprints in the Swiss cheese! (circa second grade, sans purple)

Good for you for putting in the effort to find an authoritative source.

Authors do cite Wikipedia, but this is certainly not the most professional source. Not only can a Wikipedia page be changed at any time by almost any person, citing Wikipedia simply doesn't look good for several reasons. For one, it seems lazy on the writer's part. Wikipedia comes up on the first page for almost all search terms. Whether or not this is the case, it appears that the author has used the easiest, most obvious source.

Google also has a scholarly article lookup. Google Scholar will pull academic and authoritative sources that are relevant to your search term. Some of these are available for public use, but others may only be accessed from libraries or universities.

Wikipedia is good if you know nothing about a subject and need a crash course. That's about all it's good for, in my opinion. It shouldn't be used as a primary source . . . whether you're writing an article or just using it for your own intellectual betterment.



Thanks,
Ed