OMG, Wiki rules!

[Stompwampa]

OMG, Wiki rules!

I just spent the last several hours studying for my Mass Comm Law test tomorrow...and I only used Wikipedia!!
I just looked up all the cases I had to know about, and then I looked up the rule of law they created (which was already linked to within the case story)
This has been the easiest study session every!! Screw text books!

 

[FinalBout]

To be honest, I dont think its good because some of time, they dont information on the specific topic(s) that I need..but thats just me.

And besides, you cant reference it for research papers

 

[mhl12]

ya, it's cool to use wikipedia to get a sense of the info but never cite it in college papers.

 

[bg1256]

I use it for seminary stuff too. Our preceptors (or, PhD students who lead small group discussion) actually encourage us to reference it, but not to site it in papers.

It's good stuff, man.

 

[Stompwampa]

It's not for a paper, just for a test. And all the info I've found is super helpful.
I've never understoon why college profs don't want us to cite Wiki. There is a lot of very useful and accurate information, and much of it comes with citations. I don't get it.
Regarldess, it has been a great study too thus far.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Wikipedia can change at a moment's notice and there is no verification of the facts cited. So it's not a good official resource. However, it is great for doing research.

 

[Stompwampa]

Yea I suppose...oh well. Still a great resource.

 

[Dondrei]

You fool, I wiki-vandalised those articles. Good luck failing tomorrow!

I wouldn't cite anything on the internet with a straight face. I mean, it's not like books in print are unquestionable or anything (I remember reading Wikipedia has about the same accuracy as Britannica in 95% of cases or something), but seriously...

 

[Quietus]

You fool, I wiki-vandalised those articles. Good luck failing tomorrow!

I wouldn't cite anything on the internet with a straight face. I mean, it's not like books in print are unquestionable or anything (I remember reading Wikipedia has about the same accuracy as Britannica in 95% of cases or something), but seriously...

It's sadly easy to wiki-vandalise. I seem to remember on the Diablo 2 wiki they had something detailing how if you do "Action X" with soh's and such in a certain place, you could fight reziarfg. Since that was obviously untrue, I clicked edit, deleted that portion, and went on with my merry way - I didn't need to register, log in, or anything.

 

[Evrae Altana]

It's sadly easy to wiki-vandalise.

You should've seen the page on Steve Irwin a few hours his death became public....

 

[Stompwampa]

don't you need to regiseter or log in now for any wiki edits?
every time i've treid to edit a page, it has always asked me to log on. And I also read somewhere on thier site that any changes made topages need to be approved by a committe of members who are devoted to pages of that subject matter...

 

[Merick]

I've never found anything on Wikipedia to not be true other some very obvious vandalism that was removed within minutes or obscure data about video games.
I've cited it for several college papers with no problem. It's a hell of a lot faster than googling every term, opening several pages, finding several are about something else, reading all of the rest, and discarding the redundant information. With the time you can save you can check the less true-sounding things and still come out ahead.

 

[MinasMorgul]

You should've seen the page on Steve Irwin a few hours his death became public....

No what you should've seen was what happened after Stephen Colbert told his audience to alter the Wikipedia articles to say stuff like "George Washington had no Slaves"

Heh the last time i checked Stephen Colbert's, and George Washington's articles were locked. if only i could remember what else he said to alter...


Wikiality (Quoted from Stephen Colbert) - "You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact.
We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge"

Wikiality rules :thumbsup:

 

[Raistlin Majere]

You cannot really reference Wiki articles, but you can look up the articles references. Saved my *** on several dead ends.

 

[Dondrei]

Wikiality (Quoted from Stephen Colbert) - "You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact.
We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge"

Wikiality rules :thumbsup:

You know, that's quite amusing because that's the way real encyclopaedias (encyclopaediae?) and dictionaries work. It's just that it's harder to get a position on the editing team in those.

The OED was created by deputing enthusiastic contributors to go scouring through works of English literature and reputable newspapers to track down the usage of words and their meaning in the context. A lot like Wikipedia. Except that in those days of course you had to be a decent sort of chap (being in a lunatic asylum and hacking off your penis notwithstanding), rather than just some schmuck with internet access.