They're releasing macOS a whole month earlier than usual, with fewer beta releases than usual. I believe this is the first time they will have released macOS and iOS on the same date.
When I got a job in academia and was faced with creating my first conference poster, I was amazed to discover PowerPoint is the customary software for creating them. It does a pretty good job, too.
This happens a lot in PDX and it makes me furious. It's like putting a hit out on the pedestrian crossing the street. I would like to see how the people honking their horns would like it if someone called for their death.
This is a good basic overview, goes beyond tagging/indexing, was the textbook in LIS501 Information Organization and Access at UIUC-GSLIS (now the iSchool at Illinois) in 2006:
No, it's old, and an outdated mindset. Since 2004 Wikipedia has greatly matured and most educators have relaxed their stance on it. I'm a librarian and my take on Wikipedia is that it's a great starting point but you'd never want to cite it directly.
I think the issue isn't citing it directly, it's citing it incorrectly. Wikipedia is a snapshot collective understanding of a topic, hopefully in a meaningfully cited manner. It's not that it contains false information or unreviewed information, it's that you're attempting to cite a discussion and collective work that is constantly in flux. I think that if you were inclined to actually do investigative work, you'd find yourself:
* Interviewing "experts" (their level of expertise would be something you'd need to establish since no third party has prescribed that) who contribute and discuss the topic.
* Referencing cited sources.
* Referencing edit history and reverted changes, rejected sources, etc.
I think the issue is that academia has a lot of systems in place (I'd argue that they're only partially effective) that help establish credibility of experts and sources through "academic honesty" policies.
IMO, part of figuring out how to properly cite wikipedia will come with a reckoning that academic honesty isn't 100% nor are the arguments of authority that come from academia quite enough to establish credibility. I think that's the real issue -- this shorthand is pretty good, but it doesn't mesh with wikipedia's own shorthand.
There's a bunch of Electronic Lab Notebook platforms out there, someone already replied to you mentioning OSF. Others include Benchling and LabArchives. This Nature article is a good starting point, it has links to several universities' ELN guides.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05895-3
