Wikipedia.org

[Brawny]

Meh, spurred by a thread in here and a teacher.. I will ask your opinion about it. (the almighty source)

So..... We were doing research on the apocrypha. We had full access to the interwebs but couldn't use Wikipedia because it's "unreliable". Quote from stupid teacher, "Your Uncle Frank could add anything he wanted to on wikipedia."...

By the end of the class, he had approved a site called www.kencollins.com among other geocity and angelfire sites. :crazy: :yikes:

</rant>

Add whatever you want to rant about too! (as long as it's relevant to wikipedia lol)

 

[TacosNeverDies]

If you ask me, not many internet sources are truly reliable.

Can you use wiichat.com as a reference?

 

[Squall7]

Wikipedia is fine. We cannot use it for academic studies for obvious reasons, but it's fine as a starting point, especially when it provides links to useful and collaborated information.

Also, at least it usually tells you when an article is under bias etc...

 

[FR.]

Our teacher said that too:

No, you cannot go on Wikipedia, anyone could edit the page...I'll go home and edit the page you were looking at tonight.

 

[Brawny]

Not completely true though. (at fr)

Also, his "uncle frank could have started kencollins.com" that's the part that pisses me off the most.

Also, the AP history book used around the country (us) was written by 2 people and edited by one...... Let alone millions, by millions.

 

[Byuakuya]

I personally find some of the information on Wikipedia to be quite useful. It all depends on what you are looking for and how you look for it.

 

[surfinrach90]

I always use Wiki but sometimes I try find a source to match what they say too, if their on the same lines as each other then it goes okay with me lol!

 

[FR.]

@Brawny: Well, if it's a smaller page, then you can edit it. If it's a large page, then it's locked for editing.

 

[Gymdawg]

I hate stupid people, especially stupid authority figures.

 

[Brawny]

Yep, that's the general point. ^.^

 

[The_Loose_Cannon]

I hate stupid people, especially stupid authority figures.

you dont hate me do you?!?!?!?!?

:incazzato:

 

[mr_resi]

Meh, spurred by a thread in here and a teacher.. I will ask your opinion about it. (the almighty source)

So..... We were doing research on the apocrypha. We had full access to the interwebs but couldn't use Wikipedia because it's "unreliable". Quote from stupid teacher, "Your Uncle Frank could add anything he wanted to on wikipedia."...

By the end of the class, he had approved a site called www.kencollins.com among other geocity and angelfire sites. :crazy: :yikes:

</rant>

Add whatever you want to rant about too! (as long as it's relevant to wikipedia lol)

If anything wikipedia is the most reliable because anyone can edit it to addd new info, and it get so much traffic that if someone flames its edited right away.

 

[Sovieto]

wikipedia is perfectly fine
unless you see something along the lines of [cititon needed] or something like that
all the info on wiki besides thoughs have sources
tell your teacher that

 

[Brawny]

@mr resi. Exactly my point. Doubters take that the other way though...

 

[Napalmbrain]

I use Wikipedia more than I should. Most of my lecturers will say it's unreliable. For all its flaws, it's still quite convenient. In my experience, whenever I've used the internet to help me complete a uni assignment, it tends to be good old Wikipedia that turns out to be the best source of information (or at least, the one easiest to understand).