Wait, is this thread about using Wikipedia as a source of information, or is it about using it as a source in formal reports, because they're really different things.

Fist off, this is a thread debating the truthfulness and validity of the things on wikipedia. Secondly, how are they different things. Using it for a report is just a branch of the big picture of using it for information, so really they are not different things.

I don't think teachers should go in and stop people using wikipedia just like that. Sure, if you got fooled about example someone stating humans average length to be 3 meters on Wikipedia and writing that in your own work, you got problems and there is no one to blame. You knew the risk, and not reading through what the text actually say and see if it's plausible or not is really bad. Taking information from the web or a book, you must be critical about everything! So this does not at all mean that you just can go and read a book and trusting the content just like that. There are tards writing shit on papers too, don't forget that!

Wikipedia is great. Technique is obviously improving alot these day removing bad articles/edits. Just stay critical about everything you read there (as you should be about all information you read). And the more well-informed you are overall and being able to decide if the information is plausible or not.

Good disscusion! How reliable Online-sources like Wikipedia actually is interesting. Many diffrent opinions about I see.

The thing is, I doubt any teachers have even gone to Wikipedia before to be able to form a valid conclusion of it. Most of them probably just here the word "edit" and instantly write it off right then and there. What's ironic is that the same teachers who preach this sentiment are the same ones who advocate asking questions and finding things out for yourself rather than being led blindly through life like a sheep.

Quote from Gavel

The thing is, I doubt any teachers have even gone to Wikipedia before to be able to form a valid conclusion of it. Most of them probably just here the word "edit" and instantly write it off right then and there. What's ironic is that the same teachers who preach this sentiment are the same ones who advocate asking questions and finding things out for yourself rather than being led blindly through life like a sheep.

And how is using Wikipedia instead of other sources less sheep like? Anyways, I know my teachers at my school are computer-savvy and have definitely used Wikipedia. Most of them like it, some of them don't. None of them would tell you to use "Wikipedia Article" in your works cited page.

Quote from Keet-Soo-Nay

Yeah, what's your point? You'd rather go to Idontknowwhatimtalkingabout.com? There are expert sites for various subjects. Either way it's not required you go to the .coms to get any source and can just go to a library or magazine rack.

and wikipedia uses information from all those expert sites to make one megadatabase of information from all these "expert sites" put together.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

Cite the sources in your paper, not "Wikipedia"

Are we talking for a paper?
Oh, in that case yes, use the sources not wikipedia itself.

Quote from Dinomut

and wikipedia uses information from all those expert sites to make one megadatabase of information from all these "expert sites" put together.

Not all of it is from an expert site.

ya sorry about my post saying fist off.... or am I.....

Okay felt like googling something during computers, so i search "wikipidia validity". Predictibly I didnt come up with anything. I tried a few other keyword searches but I couldnt find anything. This got me thinking weather or not there is such thing as 100% fact. Then I got to wether or not it even matters in the first place. If we all believe something to be fact, but somebody discovers its not, the majority will tag this finding as false. Everything on wikipieda genrally tends to be believed or is very believable, so this may mean that it is genrally correct or will be accepted as correct.

On the topic of using it for papers and stuff, if your lazy wikipedia is perfect because it has a very summed up version of everything else. At best you will come up with a page of info including elaboration. Wikipedia is a summary of the information, as the sources listed and those not genrally tend to be more in depth.

Just my opionions, which are genraly believed, which are then genrally fact.

Quote from NinjasRule34

This got me thinking weather or not there is such thing as 100% fact.

Woah man, deep shit. I never thought of it that way.

Quote from NinjasRule34

ya sorry about my post saying fist off.... or am I.....

Okay felt like googling something during computers, so i search "wikipidia validity". Predictibly I didnt come up with anything. I tried a few other keyword searches but I couldnt find anything. This got me thinking weather or not there is such thing as 100% fact. Then I got to wether or not it even matters in the first place. If we all believe something to be fact, but somebody discovers its not, the majority will tag this finding as false. Everything on wikipieda genrally tends to be believed or is very believable, so this may mean that it is genrally correct or will be accepted as correct.

On the topic of using it for papers and stuff, if your lazy wikipedia is perfect because it has a very summed up version of everything else. At best you will come up with a page of info including elaboration. Wikipedia is a summary of the information, as the sources listed and those not genrally tend to be more in depth.

Just my opionions, which are genraly believed, which are then genrally fact.

Whaaaaatt?!?!?!?!

Just because something is generally believed does not make it "generally fact" (what does that even mean?) Fact is NOT a democracy.

If the value 0 gets 270 electoral votes, that value should be changed to 1.

Quote from Dudeman

If the value 0 gets 270 electoral votes, that value should be changed to 1.

I dun get it...

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

Fact is NOT a democracy.

It is, actually. Truth is relative.

Quote from Bongoe

Woah man, deep shit. I never thought of it that way.

Thanks, I try ^_^