Wikipedia...better then you think

Ryno

Ryno

Active member
Staff member
Apperently Wiki isnt that bad for referencing.

According to a british study, for every 3 mistakes found in Encyclopaedia Britanica, Wiki have 4.

Maybe someday it will be a legit reference for people.
 
i use it all the time to, and ive run across a couple history teachers who actually recoment using it because it tends to be so accurate.
 
wiki is sick. its so good for shit to look up. but any asshole can change something. ive actually gone in and changed a couple of things but i got caught so enough of that.
 
haha wiki is sick.. it has everything.. i discovered that daryl hall from hall and oats went to my high school using wiki haha
 
Ive used it many a times. A lot of the time ill cut and paste the shit, then spend some time rearranging the info and putting it into my own words.
 
my university and apparently a bunch of others wont accept essays if you used wikipedia as a reference. because its not a scholarly source and peer reviewed or edited.
 
But its a good starting point to get you a rought overview of your subject. Thats how I use it.
 
people always tell me not to use wiki, but it seems pretty legit for what I'm looking up (history usually). I declaire that wiki is the shit.
 
i look up random things when im bored. I looked up condoms the other day, and under "other uses" it said "condoms make great party balloons if you inflate them" I giggled quite a bit
 
My english teacher last year let us use it, as most of the info on writers, books and films was pretty much correct. Its amazing that a system like that works, and I can spend hours on there just bouncing around.
 
I use it all the time, and not only for school research...

one time I even printed the page and read everything for an oral..and it worked, though i was in spanish class with a dumb teacher..
 
Haha, dosen't surprise me actually.

So many NS e-fights involving scientific or religious stuff comes right off of there....it's funny.

And....for "scholary" stuff. Google Scholar is a good one.
 
Does the study distinguish what exactly qualifies as a "mistake." I mean, are we talking about grammatical errors or large passages of unverifiable (and unsighted) information? Not to knock Wiki (I contribute to them regularly), but it's nowhere near comparable to actual scholarly work. I will note that modern incarnations of Britannica are a joke compared to the older stuff. It's like comparing a highschool paper to a graduate thesis. These days they tend to go to much shorter lengths to compile and record information.
 
Hmmm...but does Encyclopedia Britannica have an article on newschool skiing...or the Wu-Tang clan?
 
wikipedia is the most UNRECOMMENDED sources by our teachers because you can edit any of the info...but they change it...so it doesnt matter
 
It has EVERYTHING. I searched my town (100,000 people) and it had pages of info on it. Who has this much time on their hands?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top