They are far more annoying than your smart-alecky affectations or your elitarian dismissal of anybody who doesn't hold an academic degree.
Academic degrees are one of the means by which you can tell that people are qualified to make statements of authority. You don't need an academic degree to be a qualified plumber, but you do need one if you're going to talk authoritatively about academic subjects. Um, that's why they're called academic subjects. On the other hand, you may be right; perhaps it is a hyperbolic, smart-alecky, elitist affectation to insist on being operated on by a surgeon who's been to medical school, or be represented by a lawyer who's been to law school.
Besides, being an expert doesn't have to mean you are an academic; just as the one person above all else who may not comment on the thought of Anthony Giddens is Anthony Giddens, the person who may under no circumstances discuss the career of Magic Johnson is Magic Johnson.
Of course you are not allowed to write on things were you have done first-hand research, because when it comes down to it that is as reliable as giving no source at all
Evidently, you have never produced work based on using an archive, done a research interview, written a book or published an article.
"It is like this because I know it is" isn't an argument worth having.
If people who spend years researching aspects of knowledge are just saying "it is like this because I know it is," then why do we bother with it? In fact, why bother with higher education? Shouldn't we just look it all up on Wikipedia?
The sad part is you and your colleagues should know this, after all you are failing your students for just that argument again and again and again.
The sad part is that, even though original research requires people to state their sources, this is unacceptable to people like you who have no time for people who actually do the hard graft of finding these things out for the rest of the world. Original research gets published in books and articles. Do you think these aren't edited, peer-reviewed, commented on, drafted, commented on again, and re-drafted? What the heck do you think people like us do?
But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a scientific magazine were original unreviewed research is published. It is there to collect knownledge - and in the absence of definite knownledge, describe theories in a NEUTRAL point of view.
It is not as good as scholarly research, you are right. Student term papers are about writing scholarly research, not encylopedia articles. That is why Wikipedia is not acceptable. As for Wikipedia describing theories or events in a neutral manner, this is demonstrably untrue; in many instances, it simply reflects the prejudices of its editors.
It is not the place to say "Hey look I found this out"
Yet this is precisely what takes place. Sometimes copied verbatim, without citation, from other sources. Again, it shows that if you don't let people with enough knowledge of the subject talk about it, you risk any old garbage getting through. And that is what happens. Frequently.
And if, in the world of normal life, away from the smart-alecky, elitist and affected world of those with academic degrees, plagiarism is nothing to be worried about, why does it cause political scandals?
just as much as magazine on the medieval history of the Balkans is no place for article called "History of the Kosovo".
That's why publishers put out things called monographs and other books. To take the example of Kosovo, even though it has a few inaccuracies, Oliver Jens Schmitt's Kosovo. Kurze Geschichte einer zentralbalkanischen Landschaft is worth far more than all the articles on Kosovo in Wikipedia laid end to end.
And just so you know (or can properly ignore) I was talking about Wikipedia's accuracy as compared to two other encyclopedias.
So was I. I didn't ignore it; I cited Larousse and Einaudi, as well as the Encylopedia Britannica. And Wikipedia, on the subjects on which I'm qualified to give an opinion, doesn't come off that well. But all of these are just encyclopedias, just retailing summaries of topics. Even then, at least Larousse and Einaudi can be bothered to employ people who are well-known experts in their field. Evidently you didn't bother to read that bit. Be that as it may, when looking at my original comment, none of them are particularly relevant. On the other hand, I explained why Wikipedia was not sufficiently reliable to use in a class paper. You seemed to take exception to that and, in criticizing Wikipedia, I seem to have touched a raw nerve. When some particular instances of places where Wikipedia falls short were pointed out to you, rather than address the issue that there may be problems, you chose to attack me for not doing so on Wikipedia, even though, as someone in the field, I'm not allowed to do so, something I had noted and that you knew perfectly well. Easily offended, indeed.
Doing your own reading-research by reading people who do just the thing you do is always better.
I'm glad we agree. That is what we try to get students to do, which is why we don't let them use Wikipedia.
I noticed you aren't much more than a presumptuous easily-offended dick with an oversized personal library.
My "oversized personal library" is the one I've acquired over years of research work. But that is only a small part of what I use; nearly all of that is not mine, but rather comprises the tens of thousands of papers of original research which cites all its sources available through JSTOR and other distributors of scholarly material. I made the point that you don't get rewarded in school for using Wikipedia; you stated why we should valorize Wikipedia over other encyclopedias. As for being presumptuous, I can see that I and my colleagues belong to that class of person most held in contempt by Wikipedia and its fans like you, because we commit the most unforgivable of sins: actually doing the work to obtain the knowledge that is the material off which Wikipedia feeds.