JOURNAL #5: Sources

Posted by Joseph Carey at Monday, June 27, 2016 2:20:43 AM

I have always believed that libraries are usually the most opportune place to begin an
investigative search. They hold a plethora of knowledge on a surplus of topics as well as the
necessary instructions to assist any researcher in locating supplementary sources.
Nonetheless, in today's modern on-line world, we have seen the rise of the Internet database.
When used correctly these can be all that a student or professional may need to fully conceive a
respectable paper. Simply type in a topic or sequence of buzzwords and the exploration phase is
off and running in no time. Compiled databases are available in most principal subject matters
from business, science, medicine, and technology to history, language, humanities and more. As
a matter of fact, specialized programs have been developed that allow a researcher to instantly
access a precise subject across a multitude of databases. Two of the more prominent applications
are ProQuest and Google Scholar. These software operations allow an investigator to edit which
individual databases are scanned for material as well as options such as searching only academic
journals or sources that have been peer reviewed.
In today's digital world it would prove exceedingly challenging to locate a physical and
up-to-date printing of an encyclopedia outside of a library. The idea of preserving a tangible
personal collection of volumes organized alphabetically is an antiquated notion from a bygone
era. As a child, the family encyclopedias were my lifeline to en eye-opening expanse of
knowledge whenever I was assigned a paper to write. For all that, they have become an
impractical expense. Sadly, I would now have to relegate them to the collection of sources that I
recommend not using when conducting research for a paper, academic or otherwise. Go on-line.
Conduct your investigations there. Access any and all encyclopedic material through a
reputable database. That being said, researchers must understand that the website Wikipedia is
not the equivalent of an on-line encyclopedia. There remains an extensive body of editors to the

site and factions of them have personal or ruthless agendas. The information supported on the
site cannot be deemed trustworthy and Wikipedia even acknowledges that themselves.
I firmly uphold that the truth is obvious to anybody with a fundamentally true moral
compass and has ever written any sort of academic or professional paper as to why credibility is
paramount to source material. If the written composition contains any facts, figures, or alleged
expert opinions mined from other sources that can easily be rejected or handily proven to be
false, then a shadow of doubt can and should be cast on the cumulative composition as well. It
wouldn't matter if it were only one point of fact or single authority that was problematic; a
conscientious reader would be obligated to impugn the entirety. It's akin to a house of cards, if a
single card is bent, damaged, or removed then the complete structure collapses. In turn,
whenever a journalist or writer's work is called into question they themselves become the focus
of contemplative inquest. Did the author commit the aberration intentionally? To what end? If
not, how meticulously were the investigations conducted? If this instance of oversight was in
fact a judicious mistake, how can readers be confidant it won't transpire recurrently? Has it
occurred before? And just like that a writer's entire portfolio becomes a matter of skepticism. I
would advise any and all to simply avoid this needless level of scrutiny and execute all research
scrupulously and flawlessly. Furthermore, be honest and forthright, nobody likes a cheat.