my theory has always been the textbook publishers told teachers that Wikipedia was bad because its online and anyone can edit it, whilst the textbooks are “peer reviewed” and only have “truthful information”.
meanwhile, modern textbooks are being generated via chatgpt.
I don’t think it requires being bought off to understand that a research paper should rely on primary sources and original thought where possible. Obviously incorporating analysis of those sources and potential biases is important, but you want to be able to form your own conclusions based on unfiltered information. Otherwise it’s not really a research paper, more just a summary or review of other people’s research.
I think the idea was that authors / professors of textbooks have a reputation to loose if they publish bullshit. Like they are the authority on a topic and if wrong they loose that status / prestige.
my theory has always been the textbook publishers told teachers that Wikipedia was bad because its online and anyone can edit it, whilst the textbooks are “peer reviewed” and only have “truthful information”.
meanwhile, modern textbooks are being generated via chatgpt.
In other words, McGraw-Hill bought them off and discredited independent sources.
I don’t think it requires being bought off to understand that a research paper should rely on primary sources and original thought where possible. Obviously incorporating analysis of those sources and potential biases is important, but you want to be able to form your own conclusions based on unfiltered information. Otherwise it’s not really a research paper, more just a summary or review of other people’s research.
I think the idea was that authors / professors of textbooks have a reputation to loose if they publish bullshit. Like they are the authority on a topic and if wrong they loose that status / prestige.
No professor worth a shit What tell students that a textbook is peer-reviewed. They aren’t.