4 ms·
>The ChatGPT conversation has zero value as a source in the abstract. If your objective is to get only first hand accounts, sure. But like wikipedia it's good
by mptest 3y ago
>The ChatGPT conversation has zero value as a source in the abstract.
If your objective is to get only first hand accounts, sure. But like wikipedia it's good as a source to find where to look deeper. I disagree there's zero value there. I often use it to generate a few things I go look at more serious sources for. Surely that's some value when web search's well has been well (heh) poisoned by ads?
>Do you understand why you should not cite wikipedia
If you find the primary source through wikipedia, did wikipedia provide "zero value as a source"? I don't think so. Bad analogy I suppose - I meant like how wikipedia was seen as not trustworthy to use even if you just used it to find the primary sources. I guess I should've said "use as a source" wikipedia not "cite" it.
- xenophonf 3y ago> If you find the primary source through wikipedia, did wikipedia provide "zero value as a source"? You aren't using Wikipedia as a source but as a partial and severely biased index of the reference material. You must still be very skeptical because you have no idea what led a page's editors to include or exclude a particular reference. Frankly, you'd be better off contacting the reference desk of your local library. That's what it's there for.