hey you guys! im new here so let me introduce myself: my name is jennyfer and i am 17 (almost 18) yrs. old... ok... The story I'm focusing on writing at the moment has its main concentration on a trial...i was wondering if anyone has any website or way I can research information on sex crimes and penalties?...also on hypnosis as a use in therapy? I've been trying to find information but lately the internet has become a bit junky....hehe...thanks!
That's a pretty broad topic. I would be using google to narrow down the search, not a writing site. I mean, we're good, but not THAT good.
thanks, i guess your right...i was just in need of some suggestions....google wasnt much help, but I'll try again...maybe i wasnt doing something right...
you have to do 'creative' googling... keep trying different combos of wording till you pull up the most relevant slew of hits... fyi, doing your own research is the first scut work part of being a writer... it's not all just the 'fun' of writing the story, y'know... the second 'ugh' part is doing the editing and the final deadly chore is trying to snag an agent and publisher!
I would also suggest a Wikipedia search. It's a good place to get started when you aren't sure which way to turn. Once you read the article, be sure to scroll down to the "references" at the bottom of the page and click on any links you see there. Not only do they allow you to verify what you've just read, they can lead you to more detailed information as well.
I lost what little respect I had for Wiki as an information source when I encountered a grossly slanted article praising a local sleazeball furniture chain in my area. Many Wiki articles are far from objective. I would never use Wiki as a primary source, even after verifying the reference links (the choice of which may also be biased). If your google searches are all over the place, concentrate your initial searches on trying to find more keywords that will help focus your searches.
Certainly, when it comes to Wikipedia, the more popular an article is, the more likely it will be objective and "correct" because the community will watch over those articles and fix them when they are slanted or vandalized. For example, you can be sure that Barrack Obama's Wikipedia page is going to be more accurate and more objective than your dry cleaner's Wiki page will be because who is providing oversight to the dry cleaner's article? Probably no one. Who is watching over Obama's page? Probably lots of people. I've also noticed that some slanted articles are flagged as such. The more red flags an article has (i.e. not objective, few/no citations, etc.), the more skeptical the reader should be. It's good that Wiki provides the community with the tools to warn its readers about such things, but, again, lesser-known pages may not be flagged in any way. Don't get turned off to Wiki because of a few bad apples. It's still an excellent resource for a vast amount of encyclopedic knowledge.
Btw, when I read the OP's post, at first I thought she was asking about people that have sex while they are sleepwalking. LOL. I know that's not at all what she was asking about, but that's where my mind went. I feel obliged to provide a link, so here (it's a few years old): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3744226.stm
About accuracy on wiki I seriously doubt that the sex crimes page will be imcriminated, I mean, c'mon!! Who would do that aside from a few immature and insensitive teens who have already had their IPs blocked from wiki?
the trouble with wiki is that they post 'info' from just anyone, without vetting either the info or its source... so, anyone with any axe to grind can submit their pov on the subject and it will appear to the unwary and un-careful reader to be 'gospel'... or at least reliable 'facts' when in fact, it could be just wiki-sanctioned toro kaka... so NEVER take what you find there as true, till you verify it with verifiable 'reliable' sources...
Sex crimes are not a neutral topic. Some people have strong agendas to post slanted information. You wouldn't believe some of the false "scientific studies" posted by certain pedophile organizations to try to justify their activity, and to undermine prosecution. Yes, Wiki has reviewers. But reviews take time, and those who have reason to keep misleading information up can also get involved in the reviewing process. People have altogether too much faith in the Wiki review process.
People altogether have too much faith in the Wiki company, period. Sometimes I wonder if people fully realize that anyone can write anything. If I got a Wiki account, I could say that a zebra is type of bacteria that is harmful if ingested. Bottom line: Unless you seriously dont care about credibility, stay away from Wiki. It's practically one of the rules of the Interweb.
Hypnosis Hypnosis is natural relax state of mind. Hypnosis is physically, mentally, and emotionally relaxing state of body. Hypnosis doesn't mean sleep, but a state where body is almost at sleep state and mind is completely active Our brain operates on four different states. These four states of mind determined by the frequency of the electricity (Brain waves) generated by the exchange of chemicals in the neural pathways. Hypnosis helps everyday people overcome everyday problems and can help you succeed when nothing else has worked. Hypnosis is one of the fastest growing fields of human achievement. As hypnotherapies, we are working with people who are frustrated because nothing else has helped them achieve their goals. They have tried every other avenue that they can think of without success. We use hypnosis, hypnotherapy and teach self-hypnosis so that people like you can succeed in making important changes. With hypnosis, you are able to unlock the power of the mind to create lasting positive changes in your life. Hypnosis has been approved by the American Medical Association since 1958 and is the key to unlocking your potential and coping with life's challenges. All About Hypnosis Video Tips Learn Hypnosis
That edit wouldn't stay for 5 minutes, I've seen it happen. For example, the time XKCD made a comic about the use of wood 'In Popular Culture', it didn't take more than 10~ minutes for the article to be locked after the comic was released. They take trolls very seriously, and ban whole IP ranges if they have to. Obviously, though, that's not me encouraging not to read the sources, that's me sticking up for the nice people who contribute to wikipedia. PS: If you ever see something you don't like in wikipedia (how it's worded, factually wrong, it has no sources) and if you have time, make it better. We are writers, aren't we? :3
I sorry, but as i see it, a site presenting itself as an 'encyclopedia' that provides supposedly reliable info on just about everything should NOT have to have anyone policing it's reliability! just imagine if you had to vet all the things you find in the britannica, or your dictionary, before accepting it as 'true'!
They block obvious trolls, but people posting slanted information are not weeded out like you might think. The problem is with people believing that what they read on Wiki is reliable. It isn't.
I think it's interesting that people, myself included, trust the nameless, faceless writers who contribute to "reputable" sources like Britannica more than we trust the nameless, faceless writers who contribute to Wikipedia. What is inherently better about Britannica authors than Wiki authors? Obviously, not just anyone can write for Britannica, whereas literally anyone can write for Wikipedia. That scares us because there are lots of asshats out there who take pleasure or purpose in screwing with a good thing like Wikipedia. But on the flip-side, there are Britannica-caliber authors that contribute to Wiki too. So you've got both, and in my experience the good far outweighs the bad. I don't know about you, but I can usually tell when I'm reading something with a bias. Lots of articles on Wiki are about subjects that are simply factual. They can't really have bias. Like the page about Pentium processors. It's just the facts, ma'am. Now, if I'm reading about the history of Iraq or something like that, I might not be so savvy, but I am at least aware that bias could exist and I should take everything I read with a grain of salt. Wikipedia is such an amazing resource and such an interesting concept that it pains me to see this negativity towards it. Take it for what it is. It is not perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable.
Forgive me, but even Britannica is discouraged as a primary reference. The articles are relatively shallow, and usually out of date. But it's a good overview of knowledge, particularly when depth is niot necessary. But the review board of Britannica is reliable. They all are answerable to an identified board, and even the selection of articles that are included is reviewed before an article ever appears. Compare this to Wiki. whose review process takes place after publication and frequent updates, and whose reporting structure is haphazard at best. Furthermore, when Britannica and other encyclopedias were in their heyday, the access to other reference sources was far more restricted than it is now. Now, Wiki is a collection point, but we have the entire Internet to gather our data from. But I grew up in the pre-Internet age. And back then, any high school research paper had to primarily use non-encyclopedia sources. Using Wiki is convenient, like grabbing one volume of the encyclopedia, but even easier, But it is not a serious reference nfor any non-trivial purpose. You HAVE to cast a wider net if you are researching a topic. Wiki is not useless. If you know nothing about a subject, consider using it to get a rough overview, and to collect keywords for a more comprehensive Internet search. Depending on the topic, you might even want to consider an actual library with bound volumes. But never use Wiki, or for that matter, ANY single-point source, for the focus of your research. Even checking the links does not ensure that you have been duly diligent, or that the article's author isn't horribly biased.
