i managed to convince meh computer teacher to let me use wikipedia when i showed him the debate. But i would still not use it for a important term paper or something as said above.

Wikipedia has sourcing. If it sounds fishy, check sources. As a general rule Wikipedia is reliable.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

not 100% fact = should NOT be used a source. Period. Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE. You can't source something that is so fluctuating and unreliable. For formal works you need to cite reliable information, that have names of real people who produced the information attached to them.

Imagine if the President walked up onto a stage and said "according to Wikipedia, our economic upside is that we..." HE WOULD SOUND LIKE A MORON. Wikipedia is awesome for quick information. I love wikipedia. But as something that you would site in a research paper? No. Not at all.

Um, there isn't such a thing as 100% fact. And I don't see how any other site is any more reliable that wikipedia. Any person can make a website and blatantly lie about history. What makes them so much more reliable than a website constantly checked for validity?

Quote from Jeremy

Um, there isn't such a thing as 100% fact. And I don't see how any other site is any more reliable that wikipedia. Any person can make a website and blatantly lie about history. What makes them so much more reliable than a website constantly checked for validity?

Loads of sites that aren't changed by everyone the only information is posted by experts.... Also a site that blatantly lies about history shouldn't be relied on, being a blatant lie and if you believe it without checking the information, you likely deserve an F. Ebscohost directs you to books and articles and is a perfect internet source among many. Wikipedia is a compilation of alterable info altered again by possibly wrong moderators...

Quote from Deadface.

Our teachers tell us to site from there, lol.

lolAwfulTeachers

Sure, Ill just head on over to experts.com and get my sources.

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.

Quote from Keet-Soo-Nay

Wikipedia is a compilation of alterable info altered again by possibly wrong moderators...

Kitsune, it doesn't work like that. You have no idea what you're on about.

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.

My point is that you cant just automatically know when someone is an expert, there is no distinguishing factor in someones website or book that makes it any more reliable than Wikipedia. Plus scarecrows post above me.

Well then educate me further because I thought I knew what wikipedia does. Moderators filter wrong and unruly submitted content is what I thought I read. Am I right or wrong? What am I missing this time?

ALSO AS A SIDE NOTE. PEOPLE TROlL/EDIT THINGS ABOUT POP CULTURE. NOT PYTHAGORAS' THEORY.

unless its a rebelious nerd

goddamn my stuck caps key

it seems like anybody can edit wikipedia, but if it gets checked by some moderators first then its okay right? im sure nothing un-reliable would get posted there.

The more popular an article, the more reliable it tends to be.
The more sources it has, the more reliable it tends to be.

Also, @"Not 100% fact = not reliable": What is a fact? If something is falsely believed to exist, and "reliable sources" say it exists, people call it a fact. They don't know any better.


General guideline: Use wikipedia AND google. Use as many sources as you can, and not only when researching shit for school. When doing ANYTHING. When pirating music or programs, when comparing prices, when doing ANYTHING. You don't want just one person's interpretation of the truth.

If you just believe the first thing you read, which will probably be the most popular thing, then that thing gains power over humanity. And since most people are assholes, that is to be avoided.



[/thread]

Quote from Myself

Wikipedia has sourcing. If it sounds fishy, check sources. As a general rule Wikipedia is reliable.

Cite the sources in your paper, not "Wikipedia"

Quote from Dinomut

Wikipedia = over 5,000 moderators, constant checks on any changes made to articles, mandatory citations for any edits, and compilation of all material that anyone has access to. It is the ultimate source for anything because it can use information from many sources at once and make a compiled, more thorough explanation to anything that can also be edited if any new info is found. Try to edit an article on Wikipedia with something fake and see how long it takes for them to find it. 5, 10 minutes?
And for those of you who talk about how invalid Wikipedia's articles are, find me one invalid article on Wikipedia.

Again, use the sources that Wikipedia uses.

Quote from Jeremy

Um, there isn't such a thing as 100% fact. And I don't see how any other site is any more reliable that wikipedia. Any person can make a website and blatantly lie about history. What makes them so much more reliable than a website constantly checked for validity?

The difference is is that on suchandsuch website or suchandsuch book there is someone's NAME attached to the info. Some professor or a doctor or something who actually did these tests or found this info or wrote these opinions or something. You can actually say, "according to Professor Spaceman of the University of California Berkeley, Tutankhamen was almost certainly..." Wikipedia doesn't have that. You can't say "according to Wikipedia..." because Wikipedia isn't a source. It is a compilation of sources. In my opinion, you can't use a compilation of sources as a source in itself.

Quote from smxqrth

The more popular an article, the more reliable it tends to be.
The more sources it has, the more reliable it tends to be.

Also, @"Not 100% fact = not reliable": What is a fact? If something is falsely believed to exist, and "reliable sources" say it exists, people call it a fact. They don't know any better.


General guideline: Use wikipedia AND google. Use as many sources as you can, and not only when researching shit for school. When doing ANYTHING. When pirating music or programs, when comparing prices, when doing ANYTHING. You don't want just one person's interpretation of the truth.

If you just believe the first thing you read, which will probably be the most popular thing, then that thing gains power over humanity. And since most people are assholes, that is to be avoided.



[/thread]

Putting "/thread" at the end of your own post makes you look like an ass.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

The difference is is that on suchandsuch website or suchandsuch book there is someone's NAME attached to the info. Some professor or a doctor or something who actually did these tests or found this info or wrote these opinions or something. You can actually say, "according to Professor Spaceman of the University of California Berkeley, Tutankhamen was almost certainly..." Wikipedia doesn't have that. You can't say "according to Wikipedia..." because Wikipedia isn't a source. It is a compilation of sources. In my opinion, you can't use a compilation of sources as a source in itself.

That's why they have sources at the bottom. I don't think anyone would just cite wikipedia, but they can use the info given, then cite the actual people or websites at the bottom.