Reading your comment made me read the life story and yes. It is a really fucked up life story.

90s and early aughts are in a weird place radio-wise, maybe because they’re still touring in many cases. So I’ll hear them on a station dedicated to older rock, alongside GnR, Doors, whatever; turn to a contemporary alt station and it’s 90s bands alongside newer stuff like Tame Impala or Sombr.

Then there’s Sublime which… uh, kinda unique because the dead lead singers son is the new singer and they sound exactly the same so it’s like they time traveled from 90s to today. Lol

Glad I’ve got close friends in Chile, cause the North hemisphere ain’t looking so hot.

We’re on Lemmy and no one has suggested Red Hat Chili Peppers? For shame.

Then again, I use Arch…tic Monkeys.

A Hello Kittypede Ouroboros. I like it. Sounds symbolic for late stage capitalism.

Agreed, and a good literature review will dig up that chain. Although it won’t ever be perfectly accurate since the point is paraphrasing the literature to build a structure around what you’re doing, that doesn’t mean your secondary source understood the original (and their reviewers, who can very much be hit or miss).

And don’t get me started on authors misunderstanding quantitative data, haha. I haven’t been doing much academic research since my kids were born, but the number of “they made that shit up” cases were wild in education research. Like arbitrary spline models, misused propensity score matching, a SEM model with cherry picked factors, you name it.

… And this comment chain is way next level for this community. Hahaha

Actually, are you sure a meta analysis isn’t a primary source? Having worked on one in the past, you’re often having to reanalyze data and the finished product is quite unique.

Even “structured literature reviews” I think count as primary sources, since the author adds to the literature their own perspective and they are generally peer reviewed.

That said, when you cite things professionally, you will often have hundreds of sources. Most researchers, legal scholars, etc., just keep a database of their citations for easy callback. It’s important because at the upper levels, different authors might speak of the same objective findings in two different ways and with two different frameworks, so the aggregate loses that.

It’s not something non-professionals necessarily need to care about, but you do want to train undergraduates on that proper methods so they’re ready if and when they go to graduate school.

Honestly I think it comes from a misunderstanding regarding secondary sources vs primary ones. Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources. It’s not good practice to cite secondary sources without primary ones, but a lot of people (namely, teachers) don’t grasp why which leads these sources to get classified as bad.

That, plus Wikipedia is accessible without the usual gatekeeping and money behind what textbooks and encyclopedias have, which adds to the sources “credibility.” Money means marketing, including constant email campaigns targeting people like me trying to validate whatever textbook they’re peddling. (And in case you wonder if they’re evil, they sometimes offer kickbacks to adopt their expensive textbooks for my university classes).

Fedi users already get that, though, as that’s a common problem FOSS usually has. Point is, wiki lives in a weird place because no, you shouldn’t cite it just like you shouldn’t cite textbooks, but yes, it’s perfectly valid so long as you check those sources. And, speaking from experience, some students really don’t understand as I see citations for so much worse.

Would take me a while to dig up, it was from a few years ago. If you want, try searching something like “interview and job performance” into a research search database (Google scholar is usually an easy one to use). Trying it myself, first hit is a meta analysis with a good amount of citations. (But I’m not going to read anything right now, my kids are waking up lol).

That said, it’ll favor papers with statistically significant findings, so non findings get lost to the file cabinet problem.

Edit: I lied, curiosity got the better of me so while my kids were eating breakfast I glanced at the results of the meta analysis which gives a few corrections. Tldr, impression management, physical attraction, having non verbal things interview look at, etc, are ok predictors of interview ratings but weak with job performance. Doesn’t seem concerned with actual skills, but I think that’s better covered by what they’re referencing in their literature review.

There’s actually research on how little correlation there is between interview performance and job performance in most cases. This includes cases with “objective” tests during the process, if I remember right.

I can confirm they do actually break quite easily… uh, from experience. They don’t shatter, at least, you just end up with very leaky milk and a grocery store worker disappointed in you.

I used to take my friends wax and make cool pen toppers during class because I was bored.

It’s true what they say: a picture is worth a (couple) thousand words bytes. When indexed properly, anyway.