Wikipedia BAD!!

nika,

jillio asked me to pass along a message from her. she said the reason dsm info taken from wiki becomes less reliable is because the information is out of context and incomplete.
 
I think Wikipedia is reliable, and it is the way of the future. It seems the only people who say that Wikipedia is not reliable are people who do not know how to research...

Enciclopedia Britanica will also be following the Wikipedia path.
 
omegaman said:
I think Wikipedia is reliable, and it is the way of the future. It seems the only people who say that Wikipedia is not reliable are people who do not know how to research...

Enciclopedia Britanica will also be following the Wikipedia path.
Click to expand...

you're joking, right?
pityfool.gif




*it's emoticon of some big ruffy-looking guy with a glare.
 
omegaman said:
I think Wikipedia is reliable, and it is the way of the future. It seems the only people who say that Wikipedia is not reliable are people who do not know how to research...

Enciclopedia Britanica will also be following the Wikipedia path.
Click to expand...

oooh. jillio isn't going to like that comment.
 
omegaman said:
Nope. Nice emoticon though. :mad2:

Encyclopedia Britannica takes on Wikipedia with user editing | News | News.com.au
Click to expand...

major difference from wikipedia - according to your link....

From next week, visitors to Britannica.com will be able to submit proposed changes to editors, who will check them and make alterations if they think they are appropriate.

Users whose suggestions are accepted will then be credited on the site, the firm said in a statement.

Jorge Cauz, president of the US-based firm, insisted that the publication was not trying to be a wiki - a collection of web pages which allows users to edit content - like Wikipedia.

"That's the last thing we want to be," he told the Times newspaper this week.
Click to expand...

Encyclopedia Brittanica is NOT EQUAL to Wikipedia thus an epic fail for wikipedia in terms of quality and reliability.
 
Nika said:
I'm not saying in terms of what I want to do. I'm just saying that we get so brainwashed into thinking "Wikipedia is Bad" that we become so black and white in our thinking. Wikipedia is not all around always bad. I have heard so many people go on about how Wikipedia is bad, bad, bad, bad, for everything, in all cases, etc. And I'm just trying to show here that sometimes Wikipedia isn't so bad. And sometimes it's even reliable, because it quotes directly from a reliable source.
Click to expand...

I wonder why everyone is so anti Wiki. Ok their are errors. There are errors in books. Their are even errors in the accademic stuff too.

I don't see Wiki as any worse then other sources.
 
books and academic research periodicals have editors to check for facts. wiki does not. anyone can post to wiki which leads to the potential for erroneous information to be cited.
 
Nika said:
In general that is what I do. But I got attacked for quoting Wiki on here so then I shied away from that. But I will do that from now on.
Click to expand...

If you feel Wiki is right for you then stick with it...

Remember, no source, published books/magazines/newspapers etc are 100% perfect.

I use wikipedia sometimes and also check the sources in the wikipedia to find out. I noticed that wikipedia gave accurate information mostly than other sources.

Wikipedia is extremely useful if you know how to use it properly. Example about profile, histories, etc. I has to admit that wikipedia is a brilliant first source for information.
 
PowerON said:
Wikipedia is still good for someone who need to know the basic information include the pictures to identify. That's really help. I able to know what kind fungi or animal look like.
Click to expand...

Yes I second that.
 
Nika said:
I'm not saying in terms of what I want to do. I'm just saying that we get so brainwashed into thinking "Wikipedia is Bad" that we become so black and white in our thinking. Wikipedia is not all around always bad. I have heard so many people go on about how Wikipedia is bad, bad, bad, bad, for everything, in all cases, etc. And I'm just trying to show here that sometimes Wikipedia isn't so bad. And sometimes it's even reliable, because it quotes directly from a reliable source.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. I have the same feeling as you...

Yes, I'm grateful to collect the negative and positive information why we are recommend or not... I do listen and accept their negative information on wikipedia issues but it doesn't influence/brainwashed me. I don't follow what they says but my own... I compared wikipedia with other sources myself before I can agree to disagree with their negative views on wikipedia's link. I wondering to myself thousands of time why do they fingerpoint just wikipedia when other sources are the worst than wikipedia... ? I answer my own question myself that NO sources are 100% prefect, period.

Yes, I was being attacked by some ADers for use wikipedia's link... I polite told them that they don't have to read the link if they think the link, I posted is an unreliable. If I want to post the picture but link must have including...

Anyway, I have seen many ADers use sources than wikipedia... I accept to read the source, they beleive is reliable which I don't see... Of course I agree or disagree openly what I view the source, they posted or post other source against their source.




 
dreama said:
I wonder why everyone is so anti Wiki. Ok their are errors. There are errors in books. Their are even errors in the accademic stuff too.

I don't see Wiki as any worse then other sources.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you on this.
 
imdeafsowhat said:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Coughs.

Ahem.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Whew, I ran out of air right there. I was gonna KO. Anyways, you should never ever cite anything at all. Ever. Maybe your artwork, that's it.


Hey didn't Jillio use this stuff all the time? She actually thought those were real. OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOo.
Click to expand...

Nope, she always criticized other ADers for using it as a reference which is why she got a bad rap here.
 
nika,

the difference between quoting the dsm on wiki vs. quoting it on any other website is the fact that the former can be misinterpreted while the latter cannot.
 
Back
Top