Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is.
yeah well said.also its NEVER edited by responsible people.Its common knowledge that site is a joke and an unreliable source.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah well said.also its NEVER edited by responsible people.Its common knowledge that site is a joke and an unreliable source.
i think you missed the point. wikipedia has proven to be a reliable database of sources. however with that said, it is not a valid source. it serves as nothing more than to point someone in the direction of sources. it is then up to the reader to filter through and differentiate between valid sources and biased crap. to think that teachers would actually allow wiki as a source is a testament to our declining system of education.
then again, its highly famous so it has its cridics.
Originally posted by Schecter
it serves as nothing more than to point someone in the direction of sources.
Well, that's a nice sentiment. But we've both had to deal with people who use it as an on-line encyclopedia. And the really sad part is that people who treat it as such, never quote it as their source material. Even they know better than to treat it as reputable.
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]
I think Wikipedia is good for a fair few things. It can give you a mostly decent overview of a topic...you can use it as a source of trivial knowledge in your day to day life...it kills an immense amount of time...it is also surprisingly good at explaining mathematical concepts. But I am sure we all agree it is not suited for real scientific research...if you are not convinced go here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europe&action=edit and type in "Europe is the capital of the earth, which happens to be flat, and has the sun revolving around it"
Originally posted by lord xyzBut that's the point. It is not good to prove a claim, really.
I don't use it as a source, only to copy and paste work and to prove a claim.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah well said.also its NEVER edited by responsible people.Its common knowledge that site is a joke and an unreliable source.
Never being an exaggeration?
Originally posted by SchecterI remeber on QI or something that the creator of Wiki said "[The actual facts on Wiki are] broken beyond repair." Meaning, it's impossible for them to fix every error.
it is then up to the reader to filter through and differentiate between valid sources and biased crap.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloAre you that stupid?
Did you ever consider that it's not everyone missing your point, but perhaps that you are failing to make a point?
Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's NEGATIVE cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.
I still think wiki is reliable however.
Originally posted by JacopeX
Are you that stupid?Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's NEGATIVE cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.
I still think wiki is reliable however.
Why? Considering it is a member supported website and the "members" do not have to show or prove they have a single credential to their name, to make a topic.
Originally posted by JacopeX
Are you that stupid?Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's [B]NEGATIVE
cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.I still think wiki is reliable however. [/B]
CRITIC.
FFS.
And generally when there's negative criticism for something, there is a good reason for it and it's not just because it's famous.
So that claim is completely pointless. Wiki is not a reliable source. The creators of the site itself even say it can't be taken as a reliable source.
Originally posted by JacopeX
Are you that stupid?Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's [B]NEGATIVE
cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.I still think wiki is reliable however. [/B]
so in other words you dont have a point, and anyone who thinks you dont have a point is stupid since you dont have a point.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Wikipedia is good for a fair few things. It can give you a mostly decent overview of a topic...you can use it as a source of trivial knowledge in your day to day life...it kills an immense amount of time...
Wiki is rarely waaaaay off base for an overview on different historical events,quick searches on latin root words, etc.
Obviously, there are some articles with crazy biases inside but they are rarely disguised as something coming from Academia, and are often easy to notice.