Poll: Why do people use internet communities for "research?"

[Metal Brother]

Why do you think some people choose to ask questions on internet community forums, Facebook Questions, or other non-expert venues, instead of performing actual research or interacting with a specialized or academic community where there is a true body of knowledge related to the topic of interest?

Spoiler

Spoiler

Yes, the irony in this post is intentional.

A recent post ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.266645-Why-does-Rape-exist ) inspired this thread. If the poster was at all motivated, two seconds and a web browser would have yielded hours worth of reading on the subject, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Causes_and_motivation.

FWIW, it is not my intent to call out this specific thread or poster - I see this behavior regularly, both on the Escapist and elsewhere, but more prevalently here. What's up with this behavior?

 

[BonsaiK]

1. Actual research sometimes takes work and some people are lazy and want information spoon-fed to them.
2. People want to start threads here to make the place more interesting but can't think of anything to start, so they figure a poll will do.
3. People might be interested in what the community thinks regarding an issue as opposed to what the actual answers are.

Wikipedia is a bad source, by the way, using that as a valid research source is at least as bad as doing a lazy poll.

 

[elvor0]

Depends on what you're asking, if it's opinion or like/dislike, while some people will give silly answers(same as in real life) you have a massive pool of people to draw from.

 

[DefunctTheory]

1. Actual research sometimes takes work and some people are lazy and want information spoon-fed to them.
2. People want to start threads here to make the place more interesting but can't think of anything to start, so they figure a poll will do.
3. People might be interested in what the community thinks regarding an issue as opposed to what the actual answers are.

Wikipedia is a bad source, by the way, using that as a valid research source is at least as bad as doing a lazy poll.

Wikipedia is actually a good starting point most of the time. It has the broad strokes for the most part, which can help someone who's researching something they know NOTHING about. In addition, most wikipedia editors leave behind their sources, which can be studied for more in depth and more useful data.

 

[BonsaiK]

1. Actual research sometimes takes work and some people are lazy and want information spoon-fed to them.
2. People want to start threads here to make the place more interesting but can't think of anything to start, so they figure a poll will do.
3. People might be interested in what the community thinks regarding an issue as opposed to what the actual answers are.

Wikipedia is a bad source, by the way, using that as a valid research source is at least as bad as doing a lazy poll.

Wikipedia is actually a good starting point most of the time. It has the broad strokes for the most part, which can help someone who's researching something they know NOTHING about. In addition, most wikipedia editors leave behind their sources, which can be studied for more in depth and more useful data.

Then going to those sources and cross-checking/quoting them is the way to go. Most academics will instantly fail somebody if they use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, regardless of the quality of the sources used to make the Wiki article.

 

[DefunctTheory]

1. Actual research sometimes takes work and some people are lazy and want information spoon-fed to them.
2. People want to start threads here to make the place more interesting but can't think of anything to start, so they figure a poll will do.
3. People might be interested in what the community thinks regarding an issue as opposed to what the actual answers are.

Wikipedia is a bad source, by the way, using that as a valid research source is at least as bad as doing a lazy poll.

Wikipedia is actually a good starting point most of the time. It has the broad strokes for the most part, which can help someone who's researching something they know NOTHING about. In addition, most wikipedia editors leave behind their sources, which can be studied for more in depth and more useful data.

Then going to those sources and cross-checking/quoting them is the way to go. Most academics will instantly fail somebody if they use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, regardless of the quality of the sources used to make the Wiki article.

Agreed, sourcing Wikipedia is a fools game.

 

[NoMansLand 666]

1. Actual research sometimes takes work and some people are lazy and want information spoon-fed to them.
2. People want to start threads here to make the place more interesting but can't think of anything to start, so they figure a poll will do.
3. People might be interested in what the community thinks regarding an issue as opposed to what the actual answers are.

Wikipedia is a bad source, by the way, using that as a valid research source is at least as bad as doing a lazy poll.

Wikipedia is actually a good starting point most of the time. It has the broad strokes for the most part, which can help someone who's researching something they know NOTHING about. In addition, most wikipedia editors leave behind their sources, which can be studied for more in depth and more useful data.

Then going to those sources and cross-checking/quoting them is the way to go. Most academics will instantly fail somebody if they use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, regardless of the quality of the sources used to make the Wiki article.

I can vouch for that. At our uni a Wiki reference almost always equals insta-fail of the assignment. Good for just checking something out to read into the basics. But always check something recognised first before drawing you're conclusions.

 

[hawley788]

Maybe people want to start a topic on a strange subject... claiming research seems the least weird way to go about it

 

[FalloutJack]

Do you really expect me to believe everything Wiki says? There's a reason college professors tell you not to use it as a direct reference. At least they point you to links where the data may come from, but you know perfectly well that Wikipedia is edited by basically everyone.

Now then, about this curious posting phenomenon. Some people are just bored. I know I get bored. That's why I even come here. Frankly, if it doesn't break rules, you shouldn't worry about it.

 

[Rune342]

Maybe people want peoples opinions instead of some random article. Plus, in a social site like the escapist, you can get a debate going, which sometimes can help lead to some conclusion that you wouldn't have reached before.

 

[Metal Brother]

Thanks everyone.

Perhaps including a wiki link wasn't the wisest thing for me to do. I agree with AccursedTheory about wikipedia being a decent place to start off, but I would certainly never cite it as a research source...

 

[moretimethansense]

Wikipedia is a bad source, by the way, using that as a valid research source is at least as bad as doing a lazy poll.

Not if you check the citations.

OP: It's a ready source of random people that can give you info with minimal effort, what more do you need to know?