Thread: Wikipedia

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Why do people say wikipedia isn't a valid source? Teachers in my school say that anybody can edit it, but its not true! Its takes a long process to get your article in, and it must be all sourced.. Isn't that what a regular encyclopedia is?

It's an open encyclopedia. The process for applying a change to an article is a lot different to say - changing an article in a reference book about biochemistry.

Wikipedia is still great for general info, getting an overview, and it's a decent source for sources.

Wikipedia is a good starting point. It's good to check the reference area to see exactly where the various information in wikipedia is coming from. If there are no sources cited for a certain piece of information, it's always good to check it somewhere else as well.

Yes, it's the information that internet people use. It's the reason why I'm guessing "Pwnd" is viewed by thousands of normal people accidently being transformed into an internet person.

"Hello Bart Simpson? We're from the internet"

It can be an invalid resource, but you also have a ton of people looking at it, that is the beauty of things that are open.

Open = For internet people also, lol

sabotage a wikipedia page
change it from fact to fiction
see what happens

I want to do that so badly!

£10 says your changes won't last 24 hours

Lol - How about Uncylopedia?

Originally Posted by Jdeadevil

Lol - How about Uncylopedia?

Uncyclopedia isn't wikipedia, and isn't taken seriously for reference, so it won't make a difference.

Yes, I know, and apparently it's not a funny site.

Originally Posted by Omicron

Uncyclopedia isn't wikipedia, and isn't taken seriously for reference, so it won't make a difference.

Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia that can everyone can really edit. Some pages are funny while some really suck.

Wikipedia is a lot more reliable now then it used to be, but it's still not fool-proof, so it's not academically acceptable. Earlier this year, we had someone at our school doing a research paper on Stalin, and came across an interesting paragraph on Wikipedia which stated that Stalin crapped his pants all the time. He would just sit at his desk and crap his pants all day long, while dealing with executions and whatnot. So yeah, you can see why some people might not trust Wikipedia anymore....

Originally Posted by Ynot

£10 says your changes won't last 24 hours

I bet $100 that it won't even change. It has to go through processes, and must be approved by the chain of powers.

Some people just like to use Stealth in their included texts don't they?

Originally Posted by Jdeadevil

Some people just like to use Stealth in their included texts don't they?

What do you mean?

What that guy said about someone crapping all day on Wikipedia.

You know on WIKIpedia, they say that cake is usually lightly covered with a glaze or frosting, or sometimes marzipan, and frozen fruit.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia that can everyone can really edit. Some pages are funny while some really suck.

So what?

That doesn't change what I said. I know what it is.

Originally Posted by Omicron

So what?

That doesn't change what I said. I know what it is.

It was a statement for whoever didn't know about it.

People think wikipedia is wrong because facts might be wrong. But what teachers don't realize is that people won't go onto wikipedia and maliciously write in things like "The civil war ended in 1864" and be like 'LOL I GOT THOSE GUYS BAD OWNED!" Anything that is changed like that will be obvious, such as "Stalin constantly crapped his pants." etc. I understand why teachers might not want someone to use it on people or events and such, but for such things as theories, ideas, etc., it is a very, very good source. Wikipedia is not as valid as other things, but regardless it is not as bad as people make it out to be.

What I HATE though is that teachers would prefer me to take information off any other site BUT wikipedia. What I like to do if I can't use wikipedia and I'm positive the info on there is correct, I just go to a place that plagiarized wikipedia information (answers.com usually has wikipedia articles instead of original information). Teachers would rather their students go to some obscure site about someone rather than wikipedia, which is retarded. The fact is, unless it's a .gov, .edu, a popular newspaper (such as new york times), or other very valid website, ANYONE can edit THE INTERNET. I would say some obscure site is much less valid than wikipedia because no one else is allowed to change the information or let others know it is wrong.

I just hope something changes to make wikipedia seem more valid. I honestly can't remember what I ever did before wikipedia. Wikipedia is the top hit on virtually every single thing I post that has to do with some sort of fact, thing, place, event, person, etc. It is the best organized, most relevant, covers the most (yet is the most specific). As my brother says, iphone + wikipedia = hitchhiker's guide to the universe. If I were stuck on an island and I could have one thing, it'd be wikipedia access

Originally Posted by Jdeadevil

Lol - How about Uncylopedia?

If you post something utterly unfunny and just plain jibberish then your article will not live through the day.

Isn't jibberish spelled Gibberish?

Not in my Universe.