I'm a chemist and do use wiki for general info on some chemicals (nice for intro's and examples) but if you looking for something specific or for psysical data wiki is a big- no go. I do use the external links, there I can usally find what I'm looking for, only people fail to put it in the wiki properly (and I'm to lazy to do it )
Wow, and I though America was failing in science...
Just kidding. I use Wikipedia a lot, but not when I am writing papers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Wiki is a good source for general knowledge on practically any subject. Sometimes it can get bogged down in opinion *coughWalmartcough*, but it generally sorts itself out enough to at least get you on the right track since it has so many people reading it. Eventually all the bugs for a particular page will be eliminated, it just may not be as comprehensive as one would like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
Wikipedia is a great resource. I use it all the time when theres random trivia facts that I know in the back of my head somewhere, but I can't quite remember. Like, say, the name of the guy who became Carnage in Spider-man.
For serious, academic work? Nuh-uh. I do check wikipedia to see what they have, but I always go to their original source and read what's there.
While there are some truly evil vandals (Worst do things like change dates on CD discographies, which are really annoying to check), most just edit in curse words randomly. There is actually a bot that finds vandals like that and removes their edits instantly, most vandalism doesn't stay for longer than ~1 minute.
Plus, their are many people at any given time checking the "recent changes" page, to see vandalism that isn't caught by the bot and revert it.
I'm sure, of course, that a very smart vandal could take the time to register, then vandalize Argon by putting in the wrong Melting/Boiling point. But on the other hand, that would probably only hit one person before it got reverted, and it doesn't seem worth the time or effort for anybody.
I'm all in favor of using Wikipedia for everything, including academic papers. Unfortunately, my teachers aren't and took off points for that.
Yes, Tawkerbot2 reverts vandals (along with Curpsbot, which is off for now)
As for losing points, I guess that happens. Wiki, like any encyclopedia is to a)get you started on the topic and what it is about b)get into the important points and details, and c)to refer you to more complete text (references).
Unfortunetely, many non-FA("featured") articles don't have many, or any, sources, which kind of is a dead end for research.
If you just want some info for personal use, then that doesn't matter. I guess I would agree with your teacher, since Wiki is only an encyclopedia, and an editable one at that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
That's a very good link, as it shows that the basic problem with Wikipedia is the basic problem with democracy: any moron's opinion means the same as yours.
How hard would it be to give some privileges to the contributors with some university education in some field? Would checking up on everybody be so bad?
Exactly right.
But that would go against the basic foundation of Wikipedia :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
How hard would it be to give some privileges to the contributors with some university education in some field? Would checking up on everybody be so bad?
It took forever to approve article, and only a few were written. Perhaps it should have been a place for stable/reviewed versions for Wikipeida, but I was not around when the decision to shut it down was made (nor would I have had much influence).
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Wikipedia is no more or less reliable than any other source on the planet Earth for one simple fact.
No information for anything anywhere at anytime should be sourced with just one source. Thus, if you base your opinion or knowledge of something on, say Wikipedia, yes you can be wrong. Maybe someone changed Bush's birthday to a day before or after it actually is and haha you have bad information. However, no information should be trusted absolutely without corroboration. Wikipedia, as opposed to many sources (especially print ones) lets you see the entire history of an article to see where a particular addition was made. For example, if you do not trust the sentence "Bush was inducted at the first annual National Assembly of Poopyheads on June 4, 2006" you can check the history and see the addition was made by an editor with no userpage and one edit named "BUSHISKILLINGURMANS".
No source is, nor should be counted on as, 100% reliable and Wikipedia provides nearly 100% transparency to allow you to check the information more easily.
Personally I think it comes down to this. Me and Hunted Charlie have argued extensively about this, but all in all I think that it's good for casual topics, for more serious ones, like research topics it's unexceptable.
for some reason, my Political & Legal Issues in Food professor swears by Wikipedia and considers it a great resource because "it's constantly being updated by people who know what the hell they are talking about." i don't agree with her statement, but it helps write papers.
Wow, and I though America was failing in science...
Just kidding. I use Wikipedia a lot, but not when I am writing papers.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
This is exactly how it should be used.
Yes, Tawkerbot2 reverts vandals (along with Curpsbot, which is off for now)
As for losing points, I guess that happens. Wiki, like any encyclopedia is to a)get you started on the topic and what it is about b)get into the important points and details, and c)to refer you to more complete text (references).
Unfortunetely, many non-FA("featured") articles don't have many, or any, sources, which kind of is a dead end for research.
If you just want some info for personal use, then that doesn't matter. I guess I would agree with your teacher, since Wiki is only an encyclopedia, and an editable one at that.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2006/01/18_online.shtml
Exactly right.
But that would go against the basic foundation of Wikipedia :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
It was called Nupedia.
It took forever to approve article, and only a few were written. Perhaps it should have been a place for stable/reviewed versions for Wikipeida, but I was not around when the decision to shut it down was made (nor would I have had much influence).
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
No information for anything anywhere at anytime should be sourced with just one source. Thus, if you base your opinion or knowledge of something on, say Wikipedia, yes you can be wrong. Maybe someone changed Bush's birthday to a day before or after it actually is and haha you have bad information. However, no information should be trusted absolutely without corroboration. Wikipedia, as opposed to many sources (especially print ones) lets you see the entire history of an article to see where a particular addition was made. For example, if you do not trust the sentence "Bush was inducted at the first annual National Assembly of Poopyheads on June 4, 2006" you can check the history and see the addition was made by an editor with no userpage and one edit named "BUSHISKILLINGURMANS".
No source is, nor should be counted on as, 100% reliable and Wikipedia provides nearly 100% transparency to allow you to check the information more easily.