You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 14 years old before posting.
Forum - View topicBrain Diving: Cartoon Culture Shock
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
neocloud9
 Posts: 1178 Location: Atlanta, GA |
|
|||||||
|
Wow, how embarrassing... I'm surprised that managed to get published.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Crisha
Moderator
 Posts: 4290 |
|
|||||||
|
Thanks for the link to Takeshi Matsui's article, Brian. I've only skimmed through it for now, but I'll definitely be taking a closer look later.
Sorry to hear that Cooper-Chen's book is a bust. It sounds like lazy writing (and I recognize some of her methods... as a bioengineer grad, I've had my fair share of times where I just got plain sick of typing all those reports/papers and took a few short cuts *whistles innocently*). And, wow, Wikipedia? Man, that's a freshman-level mistake. I remember taking biology labs in college with several of the freshmen quoting wikipedia during their write-ups - one lab TA had to make a point by posting something on a wikipedia page saying that anyone can modify it and that it should not be used as a reference. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Moomintroll
 Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||
|
Cooper-Chen's book certainly sounds like it would be best avoided. Mind you, it's worth noting that the Takeshi Matsui article is also littered with factual errors. Not to mention the typos. Still, interesting reading.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
GloriousMaximus
 Posts: 138 Location: North America |
|
|||||||
|
That book sounds like it should be avoided. Seriously, quoting wikipedia? That's sad.
It's too bad she didn't expand more on the other countries, it would have been interesting to learn about anime and manga in places like Hungary. Reading this review makes me think that she didn't do enough thinking on her own to come up with her own ideas. It sounds like she might have come up with some broad ideas from reading a few articles without really delving into much detail or trying to expand on what her quoted authors wrote. This column rocks, keep up the great work! |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Tamaria
 Posts: 1512 Location: De Achterhoek |
|
|||||||
|
From Takeshi Matsui's article:
Shoujo, really? <_< I kind of stopped reading there. The charts were fun, though. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
asimpson2006
 Posts: 3151 Location: USA |
|
|||||||
My mom gets this paper from this alternative medicine site on a bi monthly basis, and in one of the articles talking about Colloidal silver (I'm going to explain it there) it also talked about a silver bullet and they quoted what a silver bullet was from Wikipedia, and I remember that it was one of the largest parts of the article. I told my mom after seeing that I said "If they are trying to get their point across using Wikipedia as a quote in their article is pretty much a no no." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
UtenaAnthy
 Posts: 694 |
|
|||||||
|
Brian Ruh wrote: "This approach can lead to some highly skewed pictures being painted. For example, if you read the four skimpy paragraphs given to anime in the UK, you'd be led to believe there is no anime in the country save titles like Pokémon and Naruto, and no manga except for Barefoot Gen. (Which, if you didn't already know, is far from the case.)"
Not to mention that just going to amazon.co.uk and looking in the anime section under DVD and Blu-Ray will correct someone on that assumption, we do have less titles available than in the states, as the way it tends to work is that we get a selection of the titles licensed for u.s. release which have English dubs, and while things have improved substantially, they were somewhat dire in the past, it took a lot longer for u.k. licensors to move past "do you like bloody violence and lots of T&A? Manga cartoons are for you!" and "hey kids, want to see a cartoon that is either just as bad as typical u.k and u.s. kids fare or has been changed substantially from what it originally was so it now is just as bad as typical u.k. and u.s. kids fare? Well here it is! Remember to buy lots of merchandise!" Uncut, original language shojo anime was unheard of here until quite a few years later than in the u.s., with titles such as Cardcaptor Sakura, His and Her Circumstances and Revolutionary Girl Utena never getting properly released here (We got Cardcaptors, no Kare Kano and eventually the Utena movie but still not the series). We also didn't get Princess Tutu (which isn't shojo but is the sort of series that would be percieved as having girl cooties) or The Twelve Kingdoms. As I said though, things are much better now overall. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Mune
Posts: 382 Location: Minnesota |
|
|||||||
I'm at a university and we read books about subjects and information in literature and get this, the authors qoute wikipedia. It is accepted, but it should not be the only source in the book. Instructors here usually state that wikipedia can be a starting point and should be avoided as an ending point. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
einhorn303
 Posts: 1180 |
|
|||||||
|
Re: Quoting Wikipedia, it's problematic but I consider it appropriate for the question of defining terms with a cultural vagueness. After all, Wikipedia is an aggregate of what people can agree on, and it's a similar process to finding a socially acceptable general definition of a word.
What better source can there be for "What the word otaku means" besides "What a large mass of people think it means?" |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Rolando_jose
 Posts: 240 Location: Ahhhh it's vacation time again! |
|
|||||||
|
When the author leaves a whole lot of nations out, I mean, "South America: Brazil..." Well, Argentina, Chile, Colombia just to mention a few have a big market for manga and anime. Oh well...
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Nephtis
 Posts: 138 Location: Australia |
|
|||||||
So then it's probably better to take the definition from a few different academic sources. If you can find enough sources agreeing on part of it you can mention your findings. Can't believe some of the stuff mentioned about this book, seems like the kind of things you'd get marked down for in first year and never do again. Good times. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Frazmataz
 Posts: 103 Location: Sheffield, UK |
|
|||||||
|
This author sounds very unprofessional. I'm 5 weeks into my university degree, and it's already been made clear to all concerned that paraphrasing like that is a one way ticket to permanent expulsion.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||
|
I originally posted a comment yesterday, then removed it because it seemed "mean spirited". After re-reading my comments, it turns out no matter what opinion is stated, a disagreement is always going to be deemed "mean spirited'. Bear this in mind as you read.
This statement is hypocritical. If one doesn't have "nothing against" Wikipedia, then it should be considered a source.
This statement is borne of ignorance stemming from Wikipedia's early days as it was finding its home. Years ago, I carried the same attitude because one could read information one day only to see it gone/edited (over 50%) the next. In 2010, however, this statement is no longer viable. I also find it audacious those who still make such comments refuse to provide reasonable explanations to why it shouldn't be a source. Especially considering no academic paper allows for a single source to begin with.
I suspected when I read the column you were/are a teacher since it is of my experience this occupation carries such position unlike any other. Therefore, I believe the position you hold was not earned from your experiences, but passed down from one who taught you "Thou shall not use Wikipedia as a source". I still remember when Wikipedia was first presented to the world, the incredible backlash it received because of its editing feature. Yet, these same educators of our youth failed to realize every source is eventually edited. In 2006, Wikipedia won me over when Pluto was declassified as a planet, which was updated the very same day the news announcement was made, while it took publishers months to re-print and re-distribute "credible" sources to education institutions around the world.
I, too, was also taken aback to see such a strict admonishment to Chen's choice of a definition. Moreso, I found it more shocking a recommendation was offered to use other English sources to define a Japanese word considering the niche English population using the word has no single definition. Now I'm a bit curious to know what single credible source should have been used to define the word "otaku". Enlighten the readers of your expectation, if you don't mind. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Moomintroll
Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||
It isn't at all hypocritical. All he's saying is that while he bears no particular malice towards Wikipedia, he doesn't consider it a suitable academic source. You are certainly entitled to question the validity of that opinion but there's absolutely nothing inherently contradictory about it (and even if there were, it wouldn't be "hypocrisy" unless he was actively pretending to think that when he, in fact, did not think it at all). Allow me to demonstrate my point with an analogous statement: "I have nothing against sherry trifle but I don't think it should be considered as a baguette filling." See? No hypocrisy - just an expression of opinion with which you may wish to disagree. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
BrianRuh
Posts: 162 Location: West Lafayette, IN, USA |
|
|||||||
Actually, I'd feel the same way about any sort of encyclopedia entry being used in an academic paper or article. Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) do not publish original research. They summarize things that have been written elsewhere. Therefore, you shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source - you should go to the sources it references. I like using Wikipedia for topics that I don't know much about because a good wiki article can get me pointed in the right direction toward what I should be reading. See, so while Wikipedia is useful, it shouldn't be used as a source. Referencing Wikipedia directly is just lazy research. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group