Wikipedia |
  |
 Mar 22 2009, 11:32 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 Senior Member  Group: Member Posts: 944 Joined: Jul 2008 Member No: 663,413  |
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHY?
WHY? Why do people continue to get their info from that site? Everyone knows that people can change the infomation and make it anything they want. Stupid Perez Hilton congratulated Lady Gaga on her birthday yesterday and then found out her birthday isnt for another week.. Why, you ask? Because his source was Wikipedia! Ya, some things are innevitably going to be true on there but some are not going to be... so STOP. I hate it when people have the audacity to quote Wikipedia as a "source." HMMPH. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2009, 11:50 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,156 Joined: Feb 2005 Member No: 95,404 |
Who the f*ck cares if Perez Hilton was wrong about her birthday?
Wikipedia's good for searching up random unimportant shit. I'm not going to go onto a scholarly web page to find out random facts. I do agree that it's stupid when people cite Wikipedia as a reference for papers and such, though. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2009, 11:53 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 ◕ ◡ ◕ Group: Official Member Posts: 4,779 Joined: Jun 2006 Member No: 416,697 |
i h8 perez hilton
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2009, 11:54 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 AIDS at RAVES. Group: Official Designer Posts: 2,386 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 598,878 |
wikipedia is good for the things you need to know on the spot, a condensed google? I look up computer terms on there and misc things but yea citing is bad
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2009, 11:56 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 944 Joined: Jul 2008 Member No: 663,413 |
I had someone citing Wikipedia on the Constitution and 'Seperation of Church and State'...
He claimed that since some of it is true, then it is a credible source. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2009, 11:58 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 /人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
Wikipedia is useful. If you need on-the-spot information and don't want to/don't have the time to sift through some well cited source, then Wikipedia is the place to go.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2009, 11:58 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Administrator Posts: 2,648 Joined: Apr 2008 Member No: 639,265 |
Studies show that the rate of errors in Wikipedia is lower than in Encyclopedia Britanica. Errors are inevitable, but there are a lot of controls in place to prevent falsification of facts in Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2009, 12:03 AM
Post
#8
|
|
 Amberific. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 12,913 Joined: Jul 2004 Member No: 29,772 |
Eh, you shouldn't be citing from an encyclopedia anyway, that's what a professor told me.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2009, 12:06 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
QUOTE(hi-C @ Mar 23 2009, 12:03 AM)  Eh, you shouldn't be citing from an encyclopedia anyway, that's what a professor told me. Maybe not an open-edited encyclopedia. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2009, 12:17 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Amberific. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 12,913 Joined: Jul 2004 Member No: 29,772 |
Nope, encyclopedias in general. They're great for a starting point, but you should read in-depth from the sources they cite (see the bibliography after encyclopedia entries).
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2009, 01:12 AM
Post
#11
|
|
 Live long and prosper. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 5,525 Joined: Nov 2006 Member No: 478,024 |
QUOTE(gojira @ Mar 22 2009, 11:53 PM) i h8 perez hilton Aww really? Why |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2009, 08:15 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Administrator Posts: 2,648 Joined: Apr 2008 Member No: 639,265 |
QUOTE(9001 @ Mar 23 2009, 01:06 AM) Maybe not an open-edited encyclopedia. Nah. All encyclopedias are secondary sources; you should only cite from a primary source (the original paper or document, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2009, 08:32 AM
Post
#13
|
|
 Treasure Pleasure Group: Head Staff Posts: 11,193 Joined: Oct 2005 Member No: 281,127 |
I go to New World Encyclopedia instead. It's the proper version of Wikipedia because the articles go through a certification process and is based on an editorial policy. It is more for educational purposes, though, and doesn't contain as many random articles as Wikipedia. Like, you wouldn't necessarily find Lady Gaga's birthday on there or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2009, 01:41 PM
Post
#14
|
|
 DDR \\ I'm Dee :) Group: Mentor Posts: 8,662 Joined: Mar 2006 Member No: 384,020 |
If you go to Wikipedia for serious information, then just go to the sites that are cited at the bottom of the page. I don't use Wikipedia when I'm researching something, but if I'm trying to decide on a topic for a paper I'll check it out on Wiki first and then see what Wiki has for cited sources
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2009, 02:44 PM
Post
#15
|
|
 omnomnom Group: Member Posts: 1,776 Joined: Jul 2005 Member No: 180,688 |
wikipedia is amazing
dont h8 on wikipedia where else are you going to get information for your projects you procrastinate on that require in depth books? |
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 12:54 AM
Post
#16
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,288 Joined: Oct 2007 Member No: 585,380 |
i use it because i know no other site D=
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 02:03 AM
Post
#17
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 1,815 Joined: Jun 2006 Member No: 423,396 |
That site is actually policed pretty well. I tried to put sex words into this one serious article, only to have it reverted within 5 minutes. :[
|
|
|
|
| *BOSS* |
Mar 26 2009, 02:04 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Guest |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 02:24 AM
Post
#19
|
|
 chinky Group: Official Designer Posts: 2,566 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 434,437 |
I trust wiki.
Well, sometimes. ..For the most part, it helps my general knowledge. I mean, it's like the first page that comes up when I want to look for something on Google. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 03:14 AM
Post
#20
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,529 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 523,843 |
QUOTE(mipadi @ Mar 23 2009, 03:58 PM) Studies show that the rate of errors in Wikipedia is lower than in Encyclopedia Britanica. Errors are inevitable, but there are a lot of controls in place to prevent falsification of facts in Wikipedia. Studies also show that wiki haters are douches. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 08:47 AM
Post
#21
|
|
 poison Group: Official Member Posts: 4,806 Joined: Mar 2008 Member No: 629,020 |
I like wikipedia. Its a good source when you actually need information. Everytime ive used wikipedia as a source for a project or paper ive done really well. Sure people can edit it but someone who works at wikipedia is probably modding it for that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 11:40 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,156 Joined: Feb 2005 Member No: 95,404 |
Wikipedia's fine for high school, but if you actually put "Wikipedia" as a reference for things in college... yeah. wtf.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 12:05 PM
Post
#23
|
|
 Tick tock, Bill Group: Administrator Posts: 8,764 Joined: Dec 2005 Member No: 333,948 |
QUOTE(gojira @ Mar 22 2009, 11:53 PM) i h8 perez hilton ME TOO I use wiki's for show updates, or episode guides but I don't use it for much else. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 06:37 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,156 Joined: Feb 2005 Member No: 95,404 |
A girl in my group only used Wikipedia as a source for her part of the paper.
Somebody shoot me now. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2009, 06:39 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Tick tock, Bill Group: Administrator Posts: 8,764 Joined: Dec 2005 Member No: 333,948 |
^ In actuality, someone should probably shoot her (the wiki happy reference girl, not Joanne lol).
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: