Maple Leaf Web's "About page" is down

[urbanpoet]

Im writing a paper and i found some useful information on mapleleafweb.com

The nature of academic paper obviously requires a person to use credible sources, which is why i tried to access the about page. However, this page seems to be down right now.

Is there anywhere else i can get a background on mapleleafweb.com their authors, information, and credentials?

[Charles Anthony]

from the Mapleleafweb.com: Help/Support - Frequently Asked Questions page:

Q: How do I cite something I found on mapleleafweb.com?

The MLA method for citing an online source is as follows,

Author's name (last name first). "Document title." Date of Internet publication. Date of access <the URL>.

For example, if you were going to cite something from the feature, 20 Years with the Charter, you'd need to cite it like this:

Makarenko, Jay. "20 Years with the Charter." 19 April 2002. 9 May 2002.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/const...rter/index.html

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/info/help/general.html

[geoffrey]

No offense to Maple Leaf Web... but I'd be pretty hesitant to use it in an academic paper. I don't know if your prof would be very happy, I don't take alot outside of business classes so I don't really know, but any social sciences profs I have had wouldn't be thrilled to see a website like MLW on a paper.

There is no peer review, which pretty much means it's not a valid source.

[Greg]

I've spoken with a great deal of academics who encourage their students to use Maple Leaf Web in their studies - including citing the website directly in their papers. In fact, we've been referenced in government, nonprofit, and educational materials in both online and print publications.

The strong reputation of Maple Leaf Web comes from our long presence online (almost seven years), the high quality of the materials (if the professor is aware of MLW, I doubt he would have a problem with it) and the personal reputation of our Executive Director, Peter McCormick.

Also, each feature goes through a number of editing and reviewing stages to ensure balance, clarity and thoroughness. Also consider the academic credentials of the project personnel - no one on the project has less than a MA, with most having PhDs in such field as, political science, public policy, and international relations.

However, I agree we could do a better job of communicating the high level of review. A section describing the review process and detailing the qualifications of those who are responsible for the publication reviews is planned for the site in the very near future. This section and a lot of other improvements has been stalled due to problems implementing a new content management system for MLW. We hope to have this problem fixed by the new year.

If you have any other questions, and or comments, please feel free to ask,

[Greg]

There is no peer review, which pretty much means it's not a valid source.

No offense taken - however, peer review is not the only requirement profs use when determining the quality of a source. If it was the only requirement, most of the books in the library would be off-limits. In fact, the vast majority of publications are NOT peer-reviewed (in the conventional academic sense).

[urbanpoet]

from the Mapleleafweb.com: Help/Support - Frequently Asked Questions page:

Q: How do I cite something I found on mapleleafweb.com?

The MLA method for citing an online source is as follows,

Author's name (last name first). "Document title." Date of Internet publication. Date of access <the URL>.

For example, if you were going to cite something from the feature, 20 Years with the Charter, you'd need to cite it like this:

Makarenko, Jay. "20 Years with the Charter." 19 April 2002. 9 May 2002.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/const...rter/index.html

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/info/help/general.html

Im fully aware of the MLA style guide, but thanks for the review! This actually has nothign to do with my question... I was actually investigating the credibility of this site.

There is no peer review, which pretty much means it's not a valid source.

No offense taken - however, peer review is not the only requirement profs use when determining the quality of a source. If it was the only requirement, most of the books in the library would be off-limits. In fact, the vast majority of publications are NOT peer-reviewed (in the conventional academic sense).

I completely agree! Academic peer reviewed journals are not the end all in academic research.

Anyways, i found my answers! the About page is back up. This site seems totally credible. But as far as im concerned... Im only gonna use it for basic definition/history reference.

[geoffrey]

There is no peer review, which pretty much means it's not a valid source.

No offense taken - however, peer review is not the only requirement profs use when determining the quality of a source. If it was the only requirement, most of the books in the library would be off-limits. In fact, the vast majority of publications are NOT peer-reviewed (in the conventional academic sense).

Greg, your more of an academic than I, I wouldn't argue with you on this one.

Just saying I'd be personally very hesitant about using a website, no matter how credible, in a report. I use academic journal databases and stuff online, but that's all mostly peer-reviewed.

Maybe it's more acceptable at the graduate level... maybe more acceptable outside of my areas of study. But in my experience, I don't think profs would be too welcoming of using such a source.

All most articles have for citations is a 'further readings' section at the end. It's not that hot when using it in a report IMO.

[Melanie_]

I teach at the college level, and I find more and more students are looking for sources on the Internet. Some are obviously not acceptable (Wikipedia, for example - anyone can edit it); I find I'm spending more of my marking time tracking down Internet sites and deciding if they are valid or not for the purpose of the paper. Often there is nothing to indicate who wrote the information, when, and with what degree of credibility. We used to spend time teaching students how to use the library, but now its all about search engines and credible sources.

[KrustyKidd]

Wikipedia, for example - anyone can edit it

True, however, it is gone over by others, who have interest and expertise over and over with background discussions that make this forum look lame intellectually all the time. Often, subjects are frozen while discussion take place and a consensus can be reached on the matter discussed. For example, the US invasion of Iraq will not allow you to edit nor will GW Bush.

In short, the Wilkpedia will, to the creators chagrin, never be an encyclopeida but it will become a bridge of sorts between random and baselss knowledge and an impossibly (due to the rapidity of the changing times) outdated, but approved encyclopedic source.

[geoffrey]

I teach at the college level, and I find more and more students are looking for sources on the Internet. Some are obviously not acceptable (Wikipedia, for example - anyone can edit it); I find I'm spending more of my marking time tracking down Internet sites and deciding if they are valid or not for the purpose of the paper. Often there is nothing to indicate who wrote the information, when, and with what degree of credibility. We used to spend time teaching students how to use the library, but now its all about search engines and credible sources.

With the amount of journal databases and written resources out there, a student shouldn't have to be googling information.

I'm at just about the worst university in the world for student resources and I find no difficulty finding credible sources without using google.

Personally, if I were a prof, I'd be a little annoyed with tracking down all these random links especially if there was no defined source.

[Melanie_]

Personally, if I were a prof, I'd be a little annoyed with tracking down all these random links especially if there was no defined source.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've found great sites as a result of students' research, and other times I've had to basically discredit entire papers. If I question a student's research, it is easier to look up the Internet source from the comfort of my office than to go down to the library and search for the source myself.

[geoffrey]

Personally, if I were a prof, I'd be a little annoyed with tracking down all these random links especially if there was no defined source.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've found great sites as a result of students' research, and other times I've had to basically discredit entire papers. If I question a student's research, it is easier to look up the Internet source from the comfort of my office than to go down to the library and search for the source myself.

I guess that's a fair point. What subject areas do you teach though? There are some practical differences between using a random internet site to build a bridge or to comment on the thoughts of Marx.

I guess the bottom line, as your the expert, would you allow the use of MLW's resources in a paper?

[Melanie_]

I teach child development - not much on MLW would apply. I wouldn't accept anything from the discussion forum, but I would from the main website, if it were connected (the politics of the child care debate, for example). Look at the feature article on softwood lumber - I can see that as being acceptable.

[bradco]

So im sitting in class the other day and someone asks if they can cite wikipedia for their paper...the prof just laughs. Wikipedia is fine for looking stuff up quickly but as an academic source its a joke.

I cant imagine why anyone feels the need to use google, wikipedia and other online sources that much for academic papers. Dont all schools subscribe to at least a few journal databases? (ie Academic Search Premier, Lexus, JSTOR)

[geoffrey]

So im sitting in class the other day and someone asks if they can cite wikipedia for their paper...the prof just laughs. Wikipedia is fine for looking stuff up quickly but as an academic source its a joke.

I cant imagine why anyone feels the need to use google, wikipedia and other online sources that much for academic papers. Dont all schools subscribe to at least a few journal databases? (ie Academic Search Premier, Lexus, JSTOR)

JSTOR is a particularly good resource in my experience.

[urbanpoet]

I think wikipedia is an AWESOME resource.

With certain conditions. Never in my right mind would i directly cite from it. Instead i would just look through a wikipedia article to gain some background knowledge. Then i would check out the sources they use... sometimes the sources actually point me in the direct of some good books or journal articles. Sometimes they even point me to the direction of some Academics that are especially notable in the field im researching.

then i would take this information i gather and conduct further research.

This makes it a bit easier then searching through a online journal data base while skimming through abstracts to get information. Of course... searching academic databases would come after =)

[bradco]

So im sitting in class the other day and someone asks if they can cite wikipedia for their paper...the prof just laughs. Wikipedia is fine for looking stuff up quickly but as an academic source its a joke.

I cant imagine why anyone feels the need to use google, wikipedia and other online sources that much for academic papers. Dont all schools subscribe to at least a few journal databases? (ie Academic Search Premier, Lexus, JSTOR)

JSTOR is a particularly good resource in my experience.

definetly the best in my opinion

[Higgly]

Dont all schools subscribe to at least a few journal databases? (ie Academic Search Premier, Lexus, JSTOR)

Yes they do. Accept no substitutes.

Any idiot can create and edit a Wikipedia entry, and many have....

[geoffrey]

I think I'm going to make an entry for myself...

[gc1765]

I think I'm going to make an entry for myself...

Be sure to send us the link...