Really? Do you really think tight-assed teachers are going to support this?
All of my teachers in school are forced to mention that it isn't reliable.
People who say Wikipedia isn't a good information source because "everyone" can change it make me cringe.
I'll be happy to see them try and "change" something to a false fact on Wikipedia.
They should encourage people to look at the sources for the article and be encouraged to use only ones with scientific journals or highly credible sources.
The thing about Wikipedia apart from a hard written encyclopedia is that its not outdated before the ink dries. One could say a hard written encyclopedia's creditability is also bad because of this.
Every time someone tries telling me that Wiki is unreliable because anyone can edit it, I tell them a story where I got banned within about two minutes from trying edit a small, barely noticeable part of an article three times to something stupid. First time I changed it, it was caught in about 30 seconds. Second time, about a minute, third about another 10 seconds. On the third time I was banned from editing that page.
Dumb, I know, but proves the efficiency of Wiki.
If my social studies teacher suspects using wikipedia, he rips essays up. It really is bullshit.
It's not like people just put "Wiki and Google" at the bottom of their References page. Most factual stuff on Wiki is sourced itself, just be sure to mention that.
Of course direct Copy+Paste from a Wiki is career suicide.
[QUOTE=Master117;28746011]Every time someone tries telling me that Wiki is unreliable because anyone can edit it, I tell them a story where I got banned within about two minutes from trying edit a small, barely noticeable part of an article three times to something stupid. First time I changed it, it was caught in about 30 seconds. Second time, about a minute, third about another 10 seconds. On the third time I was banned from editing that page.
Dumb, I know, but proves the efficiency of Wiki.[/QUOTE]
I did the ol' "cake is a lie" edit of the wikipedia page for cake. Was reverted within 15 seconds.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;28748141]I did the ol' "cake is a lie" edit of the wikipedia page for cake. Was reverted within 15 seconds.[/QUOTE]
I fucked with some random page and it got reverted after about 20 seconds. They are fast as fuck.
I have a hard time understanding why people don't see Wiki for what it is, a valid source of information of just about anything imaginable.
It's certainly more up to date and probably more accurate than the 20+ year old heavy-as-bricks-and-costs-a-fortune textbooks they make you regurgitate information from.
I grab an assload of random sources and pull a single sentence quote from each of them, sprinkled strategically throughout the paper. I use Wikipedia for everything else.
I personally think Wikipedia is no more inaccurate than a physical encyclopaedia, often more so. The fact that it's edited and maintained by so many people means that factual inaccuracies are almost impossible to find.
So in other words, I approve of this.
[QUOTE=Lyoko774;28750247] I approve of this.[/QUOTE]
You and every other student, its the teachers, and i think until our generation fills their jobs it will stay the way it is, older people just dont understand the internet.
[quote]But there is a reluctance to admit to this "elephant in the room", says [b]thr[/b] group's president, Vinesh Patel.[/quote]
Cool, BBC made a typo.
[editline]22nd March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=dude2193;28750521]You and every other student, its the teachers, and i think until our generation fills their jobs it will stay the way it is, older people just dont understand the internet.[/QUOTE]
Yeah mom you just don't understand me sheesh!
[QUOTE=Master117;28746011]Every time someone tries telling me that Wiki is unreliable because anyone can edit it, I tell them a story where I got banned within about two minutes from trying edit a small, barely noticeable part of an article three times to something stupid. First time I changed it, it was caught in about 30 seconds. Second time, about a minute, third about another 10 seconds. On the third time I was banned from editing that page.
Dumb, I know, but proves the efficiency of Wiki.[/QUOTE]
In no way am I promoting wiki vandalism, but it's quite easy to vandalise pages if you know how to fool the system. When they look at your edits, they compare the last version with your version (there's a feature to do this on wikipedia). If you know how to get round that, some of your edits can last a few weeks or even months.
(I've only done this when all the kids in my class were doing homework by copying from wikipedia - I changed the page to a bunch of silly "facts" and they all handed that in as homework :v:)
Use wikipedia for a small bit background information, and use the sources that are cited in the article. If there aren't any sources, or the ones there are crap, then you shouldn't be trusting that article much either.
Regardless of a source being shitty or not, if I paraphrase it in an essay I think it's bullshit to [i]not[/i] reference it. I really don't understand why it's so resented.
As long as you check the sources it is VERY reliable
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
