My History teacher's been bitching about how unreliable Wikipedia is. She says that anyone can change anything, and thus most of the information you'll find is usually false. However, I've argued that because of how popular Wikipedia is, and how much of the "iffy" information is cited on the bottom of the page, it has an effect to the point where it'll heal itself within an extremely quick amount of time. She argues that the Encyclopedia Britannica is [i]far[/i] more accurate, but I think it's logical to argue that the amount of mistakes in the Encyclopedia Britannica can be similar to that of Wikipedia, simply because of the time it takes for the false information to be removed being extremely short, and the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have the ability to modify, add, remove articles by more intelligent people.
What're your thoughts?
Yeah all teachers do that a lot. I'm like "Do you really think that every single Wikipedia article is bogus?" That was fun to edit them a few years ago, now it's just uncool.
[img]http://m.blog.hu/fe/feherhaz/image/mccain_niggershit.jpg[/img]
No, that's real.
Well I know that the Wikipedia staff "locks" some of the articles, when there's enough information in them.
They only do it with some articles though.
I fully agree, most teachers emphase on books and lexicons instead of wikipedia. Well to be honest, everyone can write some articles. I bet there are false informations but still it's a reliable source and fast.
Wikipedia is moderated pretty well, and it nearly always uses correct information with cited sources. Some pages are vandalized, but it's usually fixed pretty quickly. I wouldn't cite it for, say, a massive research aper, but it's generally very reliable.
The above McCain thing actually takes some skill from a hacker, though, as I don't believe Wikipedia allows you to overlay text or use Javascript or [I]anything[/I] of the sort that would allow you to have semi-transparent text over the article, unless it's just a big fucking image.
Articles which have been spammed are locked. Also, big articles on major events (especially historical) are always cited to the max. If it's not cited then it gets removed or is clearly questioned in the article by admins etc. Wikipedia is actually moderated A LOT.
I'm in university and no, we can't use wikipedia as a source, even if we use them unofficially.
In one course however, the teacher specifically told us that we should NOT buy the course litterature because it was pure shit at about 1 000 pages. He said we could find all the information we needed on wikipedia.
Teachers are tools. Half of them barely know how to get onto the internet in the first place so they are really just regergitating what they are told. I have yet to stumble upon wrong information on wikipedia (other then a few retardedly obvious troll edits that we switched back within a few hours)
When you're doing high level academic work, wikipedia is fine. Noone is going to sit and edit an article about enzyme kinetics, but they will about celebrities.
Teachers use that excuse to get you to use more varied sources than just wikipedia. It's a reasonable cause, but a shitty argument.
There's always going to be some basement dweller that fixes every false change on wikipedia almost instantaneously.
[QUOTE=marcus;21332275]When you're doing high level academic work, wikipedia is fine. Noone is going to sit and edit an article about enzyme kinetics, but they will about celebrities.[/QUOTE]
Or Scholem Aleichem.
i'm a vandal fighter. huggle ftw.
I thought that you had to message a mod to change an article now?
For me, Wikipedia reemplaced that Encarta crap i used to read before quite a few years ago.
[QUOTE=Downsider;21332041]My History teacher's been bitching about how unreliable Wikipedia is. She says that anyone can change anything, and thus most of the information you'll find is usually false. However, I've argued that because of how popular Wikipedia is, and how much of the "iffy" information is cited on the bottom of the page, it has an effect to the point where it'll heal itself within an extremely quick amount of time. She argues that the Encyclopedia Britannica is [i]far[/i] more accurate, but I think it's logical to argue that the amount of mistakes in the Encyclopedia Britannica can be similar to that of Wikipedia, simply because of the time it takes for the false information to be removed being extremely short, and the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have the ability to modify, add, remove articles by more intelligent people.
What're your thoughts?[/QUOTE]
My teacher said the exact same thing, I agree tbh.
I've changed a page in wikipedia but the mods/Admins change it back.
Read the References part of the page.
They're preserving their Jobs, because it knows more than those guys.
ITT: Teachers don't know how internet works, and tell students bullshit
It happens to everyone, my HISTORY teacher said exactly the same thing as OP
Wikipedia is very strict.
[QUOTE=diplo;21332409]i'm a vandal fighter. huggle ftw.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=283806&dateline=1271098695[/img]
This man got his avatar from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-sball.png][u]Wikipedia[/u][/url]. The image is featured on the page for [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowballing (sexual practice)][u]Snowballing[/u][/url].
[QUOTE=Cheryl Cole;21332076][img]http://m.blog.hu/fe/feherhaz/image/mccain_niggershit.jpg[/img]
No, that's real.[/QUOTE]
right now, is that article vandalized?
[editline]05:50PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;21332983][img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=283806&dateline=1271098695[/img]
This man got his avatar from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-sball.png][u]Wikipedia[/u][/url]. The image is featured on the page for [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowballing (sexual practice)][u]Snowballing[/u][/url].[/QUOTE]
is something wrong with that image? is it inaccurate?
If you use Wikipedia you shouldn't be citing it anyway since it's a compilation of information. You should go to their citation they got the information from and use that as your cited source.
as much reliability as telling a secret to a girl
While wiki is actually extremely accurate teachers won't take it as a source. In fact in retaliation to so many kids wanting to use wiki my English teacher changed the information on an article that involved our research project. Students unknowingly put it in their articles and she got pissed. So it would be best to double check wiki if you need a cited source. However, if you just want some background info or want to know some random info wiki will not necessarily do you wrong.
Wikipedia is a valid source.
JUST LOOK FOR THE FUCKING CITATIONS.
[QUOTE=Aman V;21332205]Teachers are tools. Half of them barely know how to get onto the internet in the first place so they are really just regergitating what they are told. I have yet to stumble upon wrong information on wikipedia (other then a few retardedly obvious troll edits that we switched back within a few hours)[/QUOTE]
yeah man rage against the machine, screw those dumb teachers
[QUOTE=Cheryl Cole;21332076][img]http://m.blog.hu/fe/feherhaz/image/mccain_niggershit.jpg[/img]
No, that's real.[/QUOTE]
"This is an old revision of this page by [whatever]..."
