next »

[News]

News: Changing to a new theme. Stay tuned!

[The Yellow]

For any explainations of any thing, please attempt to find several sources, not just wikipedia.
I am saying this as the site if often incorrect, out of date, and/or bias in some way.
If it supports other sites, then proceed with using it, but try to at least put the links that are at the bottom of the article in your argument as well.
Thank you.

[PerfectCircle]

I guess so, but it's still more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica, and every edit bad edit I've ever seen has been fixed in 2 minutes or less.

[johannes kepler]

Saying wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica is ludicrous.

[PerfectCircle]

Saying wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica is ludicrous.

Sorry, not more accurate, just about as accurate: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

[Cpl.Obvious]

[niceguybut]

Let's just agree that they both fail so don't use them

Or rather don't only use them.  As I've said elsewhere, I have friends who lecture on university courses who have to have the "why you shouldn't use Wikipedia in your bibliography/references" talk every year with every fresh intake of students.

[Edtharan]

I only use wikipedia if I know it to be sufficient for the purpose (ie if I know it to be right based on other sources). I find that wikipedia is usually (although not always) a good place to start for an understanding of the topic for people who do not necessarily have the knowledge or understanding to begin with. So for proof, I'll usually go to other source, but for explanations, my first stop is usually wikipedia.

[Space Cowgirl]

Wikipedia is a good place to start sometimes, but instead of citing wiki, go down to the bottom of the page and use their sources.. read them first, of course.

[johannes kepler]

Saying wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica is ludicrous.

Sorry, not more accurate, just about as accurate: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

Thats only a comparison of science articles.

[bgamelson]

Saying wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica is ludicrous.

Sorry, not more accurate, just about as accurate: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

Thats only a comparison of science articles.

Which is much more accurate than FE which has no evidence to support it.

[johannes kepler]

Saying wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica is ludicrous.

Sorry, not more accurate, just about as accurate: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

Thats only a comparison of science articles.

Which is much more accurate than FE which has no evidence to support it.

Except of course, when you look out your window the earth is flat. 

[Insigniared]

As written above, Wikipedia is generally sound for background reading and many of its FAs (Featured Articles) are accurate and up-to-date. Of course, because it is primarily user generated, it cannot be cited as a reliable source but the individual citations themselves can, as Wikipedia only allows third-party neutral sources.

Following common sense will allow you to see what is correct and what is not (i.e. anything with a "[citation needed]" tag is suspect). I think, contrary to public opinion, Wikipedia is far more trustworthy than people give it credit for.

[RE4LYFE]

Wikipedia was written and edited by REers, therefore it must be valid!  Don't be stupid!

RE4LYFE!

[johannes kepler]

Saying wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica is ludicrous.

Sorry, not more accurate, just about as accurate: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

Thats only a comparison of science articles.

Which is much more accurate than FE which has no evidence to support it.

Except of course, when you look out your window the earth is flat. 

I simply cannot believe you are that stupid, so I can only assume you are trolling at this point.

You have never seen that personally.