Don't Use Wikipedia for a Referance

Okay this really makes me mad. People using Wikipedia as a referance site. wikipedia can't be trusted!!!!!people at any given moment can change what wever they want in that web site. People in this site (above top secret) have truble believing in waht people post, then why do u believe in the people at wikipedia .I can go to that site right now and change the meaning to life if i want to, i can even make my own word too. So dont use it.

If u are going to use it in school go right ahead but ull never get an "A" with it, just dont use it here its just stupid.

Ill say this one more time PLZ dont use Wikipedia and a refence and a resource ur making urself look stupid by using it.

mod edit: Don't use all caps, on the internet it means you are shouting.

ABOUT ATS: General ATS discussion etiquette (review link)
4) Most of all, do not use ALL CAPS in posts and thread titles.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by The Parasite
If u... *snip* ...ull never get an "A" with it...

...ur making urself look stupid...

(emphasis mine)

Oh, the irony! :shk:

Couldn't you have just replied here.



Edit to add "(emphasis mine)".

[edit on 9/4/06 by redmage]

Using text speak makes you look 100 times more stupid than using wiki to back you up.

Why would anyone take someone seriously when they can't even make the effort to use their own language correctly?

Although there are scattered errors in Wikipedia, it is just as valid as any other reference.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Although there are scattered errors in Wikipedia, it is just as valid as any other reference.

Actually no, it isn't. In University, if you have a wiki artical in your references/bibliography, you get an automatic failure.

With that said, it still is a very good starting point when starting a new project. Their science section is also great as well(especially their Chemistry section).

be so kind as to put a link up for a good dictionary/etc...

Thanks good buddie..................

LOLies etc

As a sole source of otherwise unverifiable information I totally agree. BUT, wiki is a good resource for STARTING your research. If a wiki entry is well-written it will have the sources it was built from referenced. That's the part of the wiki entry you should be interested in.

Originally posted by The Parasite
Okay this really makes me mad. People using Wikipedia as a referance site. wikipedia can't be trusted!.......

such an absolute judgement & viewpoint...

i agree with the replies that wiki is a very fine place to start
& to look at the cross references & sources for the wiki info presented to you

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

our language is in a constant evolution process,

so those odd spellings like ur for 'your' and other contractions or whatever
are understandable...
in the larger picture, hasn't Eubonics distinguished itself as a dialect?
and that It (street talk?) is considered a legitmate language !

hip-hop and gang-sta jargon is itself a communication sub-culture
and if those kinda words & spellings appear in someones text..
..i don't see how their accent/dialect should be targeted for ridicule.
(because its not written in the familiar way)

I believe that it is a valid reference in most cases. There are so many people regulating it, that the facts come out.

I remember I tried to edit the Socceroos page, and how the dodgy, faking Italians did a phony dive to win the game. . . . of course, I didn't say it like that, and backed it up with all the proper evidence and quotes and all that, and the entry was still removed for some reason or other! wtr was not happy!

Originally posted by St Udio
hip-hop and gang-sta jargon is itself a communication sub-culture
and if those kinda words & spellings appear in someones text..
..i don't see how their accent/dialect should be targeted for ridicule.
(because its not written in the familiar way)

Chav is not a legitimate sub culture, people deserve all the ridicule they get if they cannot be arsed to spell a 4 letter word correctly.

His words were originally used to texting on a mobile phone, I don't see why he needs to use them now when he has a perfectly good keyboard in front of him.

N£>

wikipedia is a well known source for information and an easy one to navigate which is why i think it is so popular. alot of the sites for a spacific subject are back-street sites with alot of useless crap on them and there is wiki, as easy as typing the name of the thing you want and its there. yet the interactiveness of it is too bad and anything can be written on it.

I definately agre with Val on this one.

I use it as a launching pad alot. It is a springboard, from which, I go onto other sources. If they contradict the wiki version; I remove the wiki as a source for that particular piece. Multiple sources are always a safe bet when doing research anyway.

Remember the old saying...

"never put all your eggs in one basket"

thanks for your time,
tone

[edit on 9/4/2006 by TONE23]

Originally posted by Valhall
As a sole source of otherwise unverifiable information I totally agree. BUT, wiki is a good resource for STARTING your research. If a wiki entry is well-written it will have the sources it was built from referenced. That's the part of the wiki entry you should be interested in.

This actually came up in a course this semester, and Val's right on the mark. It's a great starting point. There are errors, of course -- and there are errors in dictionaries and encyclopedias and textbooks, too. But given the number of people (millions) who use it, it's a "monitored" archive to some extent and on most topics you can expect a reasonably good and up-to-date article.

HOWEVER -- as others have pointed out, it's not a professional reference that you can or should use in a paper.