Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 'alga' vs. 'seaweed'

  1. #1 'alga' vs. 'seaweed' 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    En el Espacio exterior
    Posts
    46
    Hey anyone,
    Are 'alga' and 'seaweed' equivalent to each other ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: 'alga' vs. 'seaweed' 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Nucleara
    Hey anyone,
    Are 'alga' and 'seaweed' equivalent to each other ?
    Wikipedia is your friend, I snipped the first paragraph of each:

    wiki: Algae:

    Algae (pronounced /ˈældʒiː/ or /ˈælɡiː/; singular alga /ˈælɡə/, Latin for "seaweed") are a large and diverse group of simple, typically autotrophic organisms, ranging from unicellular to multicellular forms. The largest and most complex marine forms are called seaweeds.
    wiki: Seaweed:

    Seaweed is a loose colloquial term encompassing macroscopic, multicellular, benthic marine algae.[1] The term includes some members of the red, brown and green algae.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    En el Espacio exterior
    Posts
    46
    many thanks :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman b429's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    21
    yea I like wikipedia. Scholars will tell you not to reference it but I disagree unless you are doing a thesis or something, I don't recall the last time I wiki'd something patently wrong because the masses are such smart editors who love to rip into those who mispost, or in the case of wiki just edit it as they see fit. The information has evolved well enough Id not argue a lot with it. obviously peer reviewed options are ideal, but until google pics them up as fast and as relevant wiki is the new peer review since the whole world is the peer group lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,086
    Re wiki:

    I was reading a review article today called "Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century", by James Shapiro (published in the journal Mobile DNA).
    In the extensive list of cited references, #4 was:

    I've never seen a wiki page used in this way before. Must be a fairly decent article?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by b429
    yea I like wikipedia. Scholars will tell you not to reference it but I disagree unless you are doing a thesis or something, I don't recall the last time I wiki'd something patently wrong because the masses are such smart editors who love to rip into those who mispost, or in the case of wiki just edit it as they see fit. The information has evolved well enough Id not argue a lot with it. obviously peer reviewed options are ideal, but until google pics them up as fast and as relevant wiki is the new peer review since the whole world is the peer group lol
    Scholars are right- they'd also be disinclined to reference most other encyclopedias. They're not primary sources and the "peer-review" you speak of is of a quality that often can't be validated. They are very valuable as a starting point for research, particularly the better referenced articles, but not as sources to be cited in themselves. At anything above first year university level, it's not appropriate to be relying on such sources, though I'd always recommend them as a first stop in finding better validated sources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •