694
Accidentally ruthless (startrek.website)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 109 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Had a class where the cutoff was 17 years IIRC so it's entirely possible that sources from the 90s aren't accepted in their class.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I looked at this and wondered what was so surprising about the text; I’m the same age as this incredible paper and I’ve regularly had professors that wouldn’t accept something that old. To be honest, what I landed on is OOP is also a ‘94 baby who’s teaching their first class.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Calling 90's "late 1900s" is mega weird for anyone who isn't really young

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Being born in 2000 would make you 23 years old today… which means you could feasibly have graduated college by then. So maybe less weird than you think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Zoomer genocide when

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Age is not genetic pal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    My partner had to write a paper about some medical procedure that was invented in early 1900s, and they had to use at least two "original research that is at most 2 years old". The whole course was a clusterfuck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I’ve never heard of this and… why? You shouldn’t cite your sources if they’re too old? What? I get that you should try to find more recent sources for certain things, so the age of a source can be relevant if we’ve learned more in the meantime… but having a cut off is stupid. Evaluate the sources and if it’s outdated information criticize that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not that you shouldn't cite them, it's that you shouldn't use them as a source at all because they're considered unreliable for the subject you're working on.

    Depending on the point you've reached in your learning career, you might not be equipped to detect and criticize an outdated source.

    Some fields also evolve so quickly that what was considered a fact just 20 years ago might have been superseded 5 years later and again 5 years later so the only info that's considered reliable is about 10 years old and everything else must be ignored unless you're working on a review of the evolution of knowledge in that field.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And what do you do if you want to reference how fast the field moves, or why certain methods are not done anymore, but where found 'good enough' back in the days. You would still have to use the old source and cite them...

    An absolute cut off doesn't teach you anything...a guidance, how to identify good sources from bad or outdated ones would be much better

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •