Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Newsflash: Information on Wiki is often highly suspect.
This is why University professors refuse to accept it as a valid source.
Which is pretty much BS.
University professors don't accept wikipedia as a source if you cite it like "source: wikipedia", but you have to follow through the source in the citations. If it's legit there in the original source it's legit. Wikipedia has millions of contributors and is more accurate than any dictionary on paper, as it's up to date.
Where your alarm bells should ring is when there's an "this page has issues" headline or a sentence has a "citation needed" tag. That could be pure BS, or it's true.
Of course some sources should be checked though, as some weather boxes have fudged figures that don't match the official quoted sources
Exactly. Always follow trough to the source.
And if you have any discussion about Helsinki's and Turku's climate boxes, I'm available at that industrial area parking lot in a running car every Thursday from 21:15 to 21:30.
I used to use wikipedia at university, but as Ariete said, you have to go through the links at the bottom and cite the sources from there. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, just don't take anything as the truth which doesn't have a source.
The sunshine % on American wiki boxes is just misleading, as 100% of sunshine is never recorded due to low sun angle at sunrise/sunset anyway
University professors don't accept wikipedia as a source if you cite it like "source: wikipedia", but you have to follow through the source in the citations. If it's legit there in the original source it's legit. Wikipedia has millions of contributors and is more accurate than any dictionary on paper, as it's up to date.
Where your alarm bells should ring is when there's an "this page has issues" headline or a sentence has a "citation needed" tag. That could be pure BS, or it's true.
Some year ago I had two teachers that were extremely pro-wikipedia. We also made a lecture about how accurate it is. For example I remember my teacher telling us about an "experiment" about wikipedia: some wrong information was intentionally put in certain pages, in order to see how much later someone would have corrected those errors. If I'm not wrong, the conclusion was that intentional/evident errors on wikipedia last for really short times.
For their exam we had to study some parts directly from wikipedia, and not from a book (it was an exam about resources chemistry, both renewable and not renewable). But I'm also quite sure that they wrote those wikipedia pages by themselves.
On the other hand, I also had teachers who took their material from wikipedia without telling us...
University professors don't accept wikipedia as a source if you cite it like "source: wikipedia", but you have to follow through the source in the citations. If it's legit there in the original source it's legit. Wikipedia has millions of contributors and is more accurate than any dictionary on paper, as it's up to date.
Where your alarm bells should ring is when there's an "this page has issues" headline or a sentence has a "citation needed" tag. That could be pure BS, or it's true.
You're right. Even as early as 2005 WP was found to be just as accurate as Britannica. It's a shame a lot of teachers ignore that and merely look at the fact that it can be edited by almost anyone. If it was truly as anarchic as these people claimed, every article would read "lol poooooooop hahaha fart Josh is gay" or something stupid like that. There are indeed over a hundred thousand users like me who actively make Wikipedia a better place.
Although if you need some humor to brighten up your day, this is a list of some of the weirder contributions people have made but that have been deleted, and rightfully so.
As far as my knowledge goes all I've posted are correct stuff and if I ever discover some decimal randomly I did wrong, I immediately change that.
The vast majority of Wikipedia users have good will and try not to make mistakes, it's only a handful clique of morons giving the entire community a bad name.
University professors don't accept wikipedia as a source if you cite it like "source: wikipedia", but you have to follow through the source in the citations. If it's legit there in the original source it's legit. Wikipedia has millions of contributors and is more accurate than any dictionary on paper, as it's up to date.
Where your alarm bells should ring is when there's an "this page has issues" headline or a sentence has a "citation needed" tag. That could be pure BS, or it's true.
I take everything onnthe site with a pinch of salt. Given the fact that so many articles are disputed, lacking solid citations, contain bias, and can be edited by literally anyone. I've edited crap on there and it's taken months for people to correct it.
I do use it to follow citations, but you'll be surprised by how many of them rely on broken links, and vague references to rare books, not even providing page numbers.
Last edited by Razza94; 02-19-2017 at 04:43 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
