Re: Wikipedia's standards fall yet again...
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloI can't believe I missed this. How does Wiki phail at this, when what is being said is true? Sasuke is gay as hell, all the b*tches wanna f*ck him and he ignores them, yet when Orochimaru(Michael Jackson) gives him a hickey, all of the sudden he wants to go and live in his village.
Lulz.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Could've been more specific.
Could have been less stupid.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Wrong can mean unsuitable, and an unreliable source, is unsuitable to use.
No. Not in this sentence: "Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself"
Originally posted by lord xyz
But it's not likely is it?
Yes, it is very likely.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes. I know that.
What made you say something as stupid as above then?
Originally posted by lord xyz
I did admit it. I'd prefer that you actually told me I used the wrong word instead of this bullshit.
I'd prefer if you'd not constantly post a bunch of bullshit and hope people take it the way that suits them best.
Be accurate with your words. It is very annoying.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloBecause everyone misses every ****ing point which is one of the reasons I hardly come here because everyone tends to skim through a post and try to find something so called "Stupid". And everyones main purpose here is to starting a bash fest. For now, i'll be the mature one and ignore it.
I'm confused. Why does JacopeX fail at--I'm not exaggerating here--everything? Seriously. Pretty much everything he writes is mixed with a good helping of failure."Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.
Example, Wikipedia."
NURH.
Anways
EXAMPLE: MCdonalds is highly famous, yet it has its own cridics of diet freaks.
Do you understand yet? Or must I explains it all in essay form? Or dashes in between each word, just so that it won't go too fast for you. 🙄
Originally posted by LanaThe main purpose of a site like Wiki is to give information that has been proven with source from books, news, television, etc. A person with common sense can also see information being vandalized as well. Once I went to go look up an Article on "Diego Forlan" and everything was erased saying "**** Urugay! Gay ass Forlan 3333".
Wikipedia does not contradict itself, the people who write and edit the articles can, though.Just because stuff that's obviously false gets edited out doesn't mean wrong info still doesn't get put in there.
I hope you don't ever try and use it as a source for something like a school paper, because no one with any common sense would accept that.
of course, that is a way to pick up vandilised articles.
And yes, I have been using it as a source. Explain my good grades. 🙂
Originally posted by Bardock42LOL, good one. 😆
You suck your teacher's cock?
No, it's because I have gotten better in school since I am taking it more serious than before and since this is my Junior year, I put laotm ore effort within my work, essays, etc.
Wikipedia does have reliable source and it helped me alot. Think whatever you want, I will just continue with my studies.
Though the articles are sometimes bizarre in content, I am impressed with how Wikipedia keeps their information current. For instance, there could be a baseball game where some dude streaked onto the field and started humping one of the umpires, and something like "Naked Streak Love" would have its own link 2 days later.
Originally posted by JacopeX
Because everyone misses every ****ing point which is one of the reasons I hardly come here because everyone tends to skim through a post and try to find something so called "Stupid". And everyones main purpose here is to starting a bash fest. For now, i'll be the mature one and ignore it.Anways
[B]EXAMPLE
: MCdonalds is highly famous, yet it has its own cridics of diet freaks.Do you understand yet? Or must I explains it all in essay form? Or dashes in between each word, just so that it won't go too fast for you. 🙄 [/B]
JacopeX, your post rarely have a point; that is a fact. Not sure if it is just the way you write and your point doesn't come through as you visualized it, or if you just post pointless posts. You also tend to make many ignorant generalizations. I am not trying to bash you here; just explain why you get so much flack.
Again, what does that have to do with anything? Something having critics doesn't make it correct, proper, better etc. etc. etc. by default.
Originally posted by JacopeX
And yes, I have been using it as a source. Explain my good grades. 🙂
Inadequate vetting by teachers.
There is absoluterly no way wikipedia counts as a good source and anyone letting it through as one is being derelict in duty.
There are several reasons for this:
1. NO encyclopedia is a good source. Encyclopedias are compendiums of information, NOT sources. The point of sources are to be things coming from expert testimony, and without that expert source they are worthless- source may as well be the girl next door. Encyclopedias use sources for their info; use those sources, not the content of books that have no claim to expertise. To further this, Wikipedia has an extremely clear 'no original research' rule. All of it must come from somewhere else, and it itself has no claim to fact.
2. One of the points of referencing is to provide due credit. Wikipedia is anonymous. It therefore breaks one of the cardinal rules of being a good source.
3. As has been repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a reliable source as there are no controls over who contributes. When it comes to referencing, your opinion on whether the source is any good or not is irrelevant. The only important thing is that the source can be objectively recognised as being expert else the reference is entirely pointless.
I will remind you the founder and head of Wikipedia has specifically said "Do not use wikipeida as a reference." Wiki is commonly rejected as a source by all respectable academic instituions and with good cause.
You do yourself no favours by using it as one and any good grades tha rely upon it have not been properly earned. This kind of cavalier treatment of sources might just abbout fly by poor vetting where you are right now but it will not be accepted in any decent institutuon and it is best you learn that right now before trying it with one once you go to College.
Wikipedia simply and objectively fails in this regard- if you can use the word 'fail', bcause to be used as source material is manifestly NOT what Wikipedia is actually trying to do.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
1. NO encyclopedia is a good source. Encyclopedias are compendiums of information, NOT sources. The point of sources are to be things coming from expert testimony, and without that expert source they are worthless- source may as well be the girl next door. Encyclopedias use sources for their info; use those sources, not the content of books that have no claim to expertise. To further this, Wikipedia has an extremely clear 'no original research' rule. All of it must come from somewhere else, and it itself has no claim to fact.
I keep wondering why no one is mentioning this. Wiki does actually have places where citations can be referenced at the bottom of the page. Wiki is not the source you cite.
Geez.
Originally posted by Lana
Yet people do cite wiki as a source, and not everything posted on there IS sourced.
Agreed, but check the parts that are cited.
Even the Naruto section has chapter of the manga cited as a source for information.
Take it with a grain of salt as with most things until you check multiple sources.
Originally posted by JacopeXMcDonalds has critics because it has bad food, nice of you to make that comparison.
[B]EXAMPLE: MCdonalds is highly famous, yet it has its own cridics of diet freaks.Do you understand yet? Or must I explains it all in essay form? Or dashes in between each word, just so that it won't go too fast for you. 🙄 [/B]