what better source is there to determine whether wikipedia is a valid source than...wikipedia? thats right, wikipedia has expressed their opinion on whether their site is a valid source for information. the answer: no
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipediachools%27_FAQ#Is_Wikipedia_accurate_and
_reliable.3F[/url]
(EDIT: kmc's smilies forbid me from posting a working link, but you can use the search function)
(horribly understated, but none the less...)
...anyone who sites wikipedia is clearly an idiot. and for those who have confessed to using it as a direct source and are asking themselves "is he calling me an idiot?": yes. yes i am.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Last edited by Schecter on Oct 10th, 2007 at 04:37 AM
Maybe I should just go outside the box and say Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are more about defining things (like Dictionaries, but different information on the word(s)). They're not really sources.
Anyone else think it's funny how associated with JacopeX this is?
Just a joke parodying the rumour, and the fact he acts irrational at times. I actually do like him, I just think there are times he needs to chill and think twice, or rather, outside his side of a debate.
Wikipedia is not meant as a reference source. It does have it's uses though. "The centre for learning", part of the Institue for Education in London cite it heavily in the publication "Inspiring post 16 Science education". It does have a role as a quick introduction to send people in the right direction to both read around a subject and ask the right questions in tutorials. Viva the Wiki.
KMC Community Forums
chools%27_FAQ#Is_Wikipedia_accurate_and
Oct 10th, 2007 04:35 AM
