Not wanting to start a long discussion.... but....

[Charlotte91]

Its not a myth, its on Wikipedia!!!

[buliej]

and according to the wise wikipedia man (or woman), it does sound like a theory that has been debunked

[RockinSAHD]

Its not a myth, its on Wikipedia!!!

Just to clarify; TC's Wikipedia quote says the early research was wrong and that babies are born with a fully functional blood brain barrier...

Wikipedia is pretty cool charlotte, my uni course is full of pretty technical medical stuff, I use Wiki a lot (at lot a lot!) and I get really good marks when I put my mind to it. I've never come across a dodgy entry and I prefer to use it over the thousands of dollars of medical textbooks in the house. Though I wouldn't admit any of this to my lecturers...
I used to be very cautious about using it but I've owned textbooks that are not as concise or accurate.

[entreat]

Wikipedia is pretty cool charlotte, my uni course is full of pretty technical medical stuff, I use Wiki a lot (at lot a lot!) and I get really good marks when I put my mind to it. I've never come across a dodgy entry and I prefer to use it over the thousands of dollars of medical textbooks in the house. Though I wouldn't admit any of this to my lecturers...
.

There is a very good reason for that. Wiki is not, in the slightest, considered a peer-reviewed document. In recent years, it has apparently cleaned up its reputation. However, one should use it with absolute skepticism because of the origins of almost every article - where anyone could write whatever they wanted, and often contrary to anything resembling the truth.

[RockinSAHD]

There is a very good reason for that. Wiki is not, in the slightest, considered a peer-reviewed document. In recent years, it has apparently cleaned up its reputation. However, one should use it with absolute skepticism because of the origins of almost every article - where anyone could write whatever they wanted, and often contrary to anything resembling the truth.

Any one person could write whatever they wanted so long as they were the only person involved in the entry. Wiki is peer-edited and heavily referenced, if you have a look you might be surprised!

[entreat]

err - I have. That's why I stand by what I wrote. And that's why you wouldn't ever EVER reference it in your course work. You would be laughed at. Hard.

[RockinSAHD]

err - I have. That's why I stand by what I wrote. And that's why you wouldn't ever EVER reference it in your course work. You would be laughed at. Hard.

Ouch! Thats harsh. I know it's a terrible hubris but I'll keep using it, even at the risk of being laughed at!

[entreat]

Sorry - that was a bit, wasn't it. It just yanks my chain that people take it as gospel. I went to uni with a bunch of clowns that still wouldn't know a peer review journal/article if it was stapled to their degrees. Of course, unless you're an academic... it's all a bit academic.

[Roryrory]

DH just finished a DipEd (methods are senior physics and maths) and tells me he referenced Wikipedia in his assignments. No laughter ensued.

Entreat, I suspect it depends on what you are researching/writing about.