SEARCH:
Sign in | Join | Help
search Mercola.com
 
FREE Subscription 
The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter
Beyond Wikipedia: 19 References You Can't Do Without

wikipedia, information, references, reference material, web sites, useful information, entertainment, informational web sitesWikipedia can serve as a great introduction to a subject, and connect you to other related ideas, people and places. But it’s not all there is. Here are some resources that can help you with whatever information you need to find:

Bartleby -- Famous quotes and full poetry texts

Citizendium -- More “professional” Wikipedia, although usually not as detailed

Answers.com -- Makes use of the information on Wikipedia and many other reference sites to become a one stop shop

ePodunk -- Information about cities and places

Encyclopedia Britannica -- An excellent source of information, and much more authoritative than Wikipedia.

Scholarpedia -- A step up from both Wikipedia and Citizendium in terms of scholarly respectability; the articles are all written by experts with peer review

JSTOR (limited access; talk to your school or library) -- All those stuffy journals around your professor’s office, and articles in your course packets

Oxford English Dictionary (limited access; talk to your school or library) -- The definitive resource when it comes to the English language

Wikiseek -- Wikipedia with a better search engine

Online Education Database -- Over 100 specific search and research tools, often relevant to specific subjects

MathWorld -- Everything mathematics from Geometry to Calculus is covered in great detail

GeoHive and Fedstats -- Public access to public agency statistics

Theoi and Encyclopedia of Mythology -- Excellent resources on the subject of mythology and ancient religions

Glossary of Poetic Forms -- You too can know the difference between a Canto and a Cento

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Foldop -- Excellent sources on just about anything philosophy related

Religion Online -- An excellent, excellent resource filled with many primary texts


Sources:

Related Links:



Comment on This Article Community Comments (24)
 
 
Posted On Feb 26, 2008

This article, no the comments, remind me of the classic story, where 50 people sit in a circle and pass stories around. No one but the originator ever knows who started which story, but the originator. Dr. Mercola must be chuckling at how the allegations against him evolve here. If you scroll back up, to just the article, he doesn't smack wiki, he just offers a broadening of perspective. What's wrong with that?

As for those of you who think that drug companies don't run government health policey, you obviously need that broadening!

I don't think by this posting that Dr. Mercola is trying to become the next whatreallyhappened or rense.

However, if you want the real lowdown on wiki, those would be a good place to start.

Good work as usual Dr. Mercola.

His advice on natural muscle relaxants and antiinflamatories has been a miracola to me.


 
loghomes
Novice User Novice User, Joined On 2/2008
loghomes  
 
 
 
Posted On Feb 01, 2008
JSTOR is highly-recommended if you are looking for original research articles. I visit it a lot because much of my research is founded upon very old theories and work, and it is sometimes the only place to find the classic literature electronically. (Yes, I admit I'm too lazy to go to the library and photocopy it! ;-) )

 
CSR
Apprentice User Apprentice User, Joined On 8/2007
CSR  
 
 
 
Posted On Feb 19, 2008

Thanks for the resources -- but I too have a problem with the religion website referenced. It's only really useful if you want the perspective of certain brands of Christianity, NOT as a general resource on religion. A quick search turned up

www.religioustolerance.org

which is much broader in scope and appears to offer information on the major world religions in a less biased format. We in this country already have so much ignorance of other faiths and cultures that we can't afford to stop short of seeking true understanding of others from their perspective.


 
hoopoe
Novice User Novice User, Joined On 10/2007
hoopoe  
 
 
 
Posted On Jan 31, 2008
Wiki remains highly biased advertisements, dominated by the person, or entities, willing to keep policing their posted propaganda, and bouncing, deleting, and complaining about rival information, they don't want posted. 

Wiki is about as trustworthy as a drug approval at FDA.

 
Russ Bianchi
Savvy User Savvy User, Joined On 9/2006
Russ Bianchi  
Replied

curlilox
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 8/2007
curlilox  
 
Posted On Feb 01, 2008
Russ, Was it Wikipedia that was blasting Dr. Mercola?


Kissamee
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 12/2007
Kissamee  
 
Posted On Feb 01, 2008
I've heard lots of 'influential' people have enemies' lists. 
From Wiki0pedia re: Joseph Mercola"On the website, he also promotes and sells a variety of products. Mercola has received a pair of warnings from the FDA for marketing nutritional products in a manner which violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act "  Does this make you feel uncomfortable?  Why does the truth offend?
I don't trust Wikipedia ...this is Fox news deja Vue.
Kel


lively
Novice User Novice User Joined On 12/2006
lively  
 
Posted On Feb 03, 2008
Have you any idea what the Wiki founders did for a living before they launched Wikipedia?



Russ Bianchi
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 9/2006
Russ Bianchi  
 
Posted On Feb 04, 2008
I have not idea what the founders of WIKI did before, nor care.  

I have no idea if WIKI did or did not go after Dr Mercola. 

My contention is the vast majority of what is on WIKI is highly biased and NOT correctly policed for correction, or moderation towards TRUTH, which IS the case on Vital Votes, benefiting MILLIONS of readers per day, with proactive, low cost, non evasive, preventative health recommendations.

WIKI is to the internet what Pravda or Investia or Tass News Agency were to the old and evil CCCP/USSR = TOTAL PROPAGANDA.

Uncle Russ


DrEric_203
Novice User Novice User Joined On 5/2007
DrEric_203  
 
Posted On Feb 19, 2008

You do have a choice to validate the truthiness of Wikipedia...heck, there's enough Mercola.com users that we could make our own "facts" on Wikipedia if we just all agree and work together.



sobber
Novice User Novice User Joined On 10/2007
sobber  
 
Posted On Feb 19, 2008

try  WikiLeaks which is an uncensorable version of wikipedia but I heard they rerouting traffic (read spy) on whoever wanna go to wikileaks



Pat Ormsby
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2006
Pat Ormsby  
 
Posted On Feb 20, 2008

Dear Dickwitty, can you include me in your next poem, please?  I suspect you are nobody here unless *** does a job on you!


 
 
 
Posted On Feb 19, 2008

There is bias on Wikipedia that is pro-establishment, pro-United states, pro mainstream media, pro-inside the beltway Washington, pro Pentagon, and pro medical establishment.  Their rules for "reliable sources" and "no self published material" are effectively excluding most activist and web based opinion makers (except for so called "think tanks" funded by big corporate money.)  


 
MaxPont
Novice User Novice User, Joined On 9/2007
MaxPont  
Replied

randy272
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2006
randy272  
 
Posted On Feb 19, 2008

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia.  My 10 year old uses it as a source for overviews on historical events.  But I really hope this limited contact doesn't pollute his mind and that he doesn't become...pro-U.S.  To be on the safe side, I'd start making sure he reads some Karl Marx every day.

However, I want to congratulate you for providing me with such a great laugh.  Let's see if I got this straight.  Wikipedia is both pro-U.S. and pro-mainstream media.  That's comical.  Since when is the mainstream media pro-U.S?  Duh!  You have to go back to the Kennedy era in order to find a time when the media was even remotely pro-U.S.  

I'm also curious about who your "activist and web-based opinion makers" are?  Who are these intellectual giants being shut-out by Wiki?  For some strange reason, I'll just bet you could find their "ravings" on Move-On.

I know it's hard for the left to accept, but I find it somewhat comforting that a web-based purveyor of information would insist on "reliable sources".


 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2009 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved. If you want to use this article on your site please click here. This content may be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.
* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your physician before using this product.