Published
I disagree about wikipedia. It's a GREAT source for initial information, particularly if it is well written. The well-written wiki entries have footnotes (which you can then seek out for more in depth information) and a subsequent list of sources, often with direct links, at the bottom of the page.
I have often used wikipedia as my starting point for some sort of research. I typically looked up the sources and clicked on the external links (also provided at the bottom of each page). Sometimes, too, the wiki article simply explained something more clearly than another source I found. While I couldn't necessarily use some of the info, the wiki article contributed to my understanding of my subject.
While yes, anyone can edit or add an article, it is also a user-moderated website. It operates on the notion that people want to share knowledge. A minute percentage of articles are blatantly false or hacked. True, some info is outdated or suspect...but you can find plenty of info in journals that is outdated or suspect as well.
plethoraldork
49 Posts
i need to report about:
alterations in neuromuscular function
alterations in autonomic nervous system
alterations in motor functions
alterations in sensation: vision and hearing
can you help me where to find this topics here on the net. thank you:)