RayOxide Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I think it's one of the best sites around, and you're apparently a pretty big whiner. I can imagine that you saw one specific entry that was false and got an F on a term paper or something because of it. You make it sound like everything on the site is false, when infact, I've yet to read anything false on the site...Well, except for when I clicked on the link to dwarfism and and someone wrote "It's freakin' hilarious!" in front of all the actually factual information. A big +1 to that my friend!....Or not my friend...I don't know.. Anyway, to the point, Wikipedia lets people edit them because some administrators don't get the news for some things, or they don't really care.. That's why it's open to the public, but if an idiotic, immature person, is going to come in and completely be a hater on Wikipedia, I shall defend it. It's my source of information. And many other peoples too. Don't whine, get a job (unlike me) and I might make a new topic: I dont need a siggy no moar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real ET Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 FrancisRune83 I love you for posting this. And that's not being whiney. It's speaking the truth, HALLELUAH! Cowards can't block Warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayOxide Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 ^......Right... (Offtopic) That's flaming? #-o Sorry Tripsis.. (Not sarcastically) (Also, forgive. :pray: ) I dont need a siggy no moar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Exactly. If you try to cite wikipedia as a source for a high school and definitely a university or college, your paper will not do so good. Yeah, but it is a good place to start. It's a place to get a general feel of a topic and some key points about it too. True. I personally think that it's rediculously awesome. If i'm writing up a paper or something, though, I'll obviously not cite it. Teachers/lecturers generally don't like it. On a related note, wikipedia literally saved me hours in a data gathering excercise just recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf2000 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Would you like some cheese with that whine? I have written many an A+ report with information from Wikipedia. I've never seen vandalism once. If you have, you must have been searching for a vandalism prone subject, or directly connected to the vandalism itself. I write a lot of papers with it too. Never failed any. and if your casually looking for info on something it's great. If you dont like it though just dont use it. and If I use it I usually get some other references and cite those instead. :-$ pixel sig and avatar by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloriagod Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 And that's not being whiney. It's speaking the truth, HALLELUAH! "Wikipedia sucks" is not truth. It's opinion. And yes, he is being whiney. Internet Marketing For Newbies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knives669 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 You only wish you were as godly as Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightLite Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 So make a big deal about it... If you don't like it, don't use it - Only character in Runescape History maxed out in RSC and RS2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 And to the OP, have you got any more effective research sites that can save hours of googling when doing research? Wikipedia is fantastic for getting a good overview, and then I generally follow the links at the bottom. On a side note, Citizendium, started by one of the founders of Wikipedia might be a better reference for research papers. It requires 'gentle expert oversight' (i.e. more effective peer review) and people to use their real names. There aren't anywhere near as many articles because it's only just started really. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 This post is about as biased and whiney as an article on wikipedia. Hmmm....irrrrrooooonyyyy! This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biabf Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Why do people do this? If YOU don't like it don't use it. Don't try spread your stupid decision on us. Wikipedia is full of good information, the idea of editting is a very good one. People with a speciality can tell others about it. EG someone a nutritionist could edit in information about a health diet. A microbiologist could edit in information about bacteria, etc. People can share their knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suomiownaa Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Smells like whine...I use Wikipedia pretty much and found out it is very good source of information. Of course, the information isn't always perfect or it is getting old but good site in my mind anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echofish Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 There's far too many articles to check for vandalism and such. I don't think it's their fault if they let a little slip pass. And besides, there's tons of people who would 'vandal' (or write what we think) in Wiki anyway, you can't blame em. Except those who just ruin it, of course. Ultra Unholy,Hearted Machine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmo_killer6 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Why post such a biased review? YOur basically just stating your oppinion. So far Wikipedia has been a great help for me on schoolwork sometimes saving hours. You're just stupid if you cite. Besides I rearely see vandalism and even then it's fixed very quikly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave0293 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I only use http://www.uncyclopedia.org I prefer it to wikipedia, because even if someone edits it, and loads it of full of rubbish, it doesnt matter \ And i like wikipedia. If you dont like it, keep it to yourself, because complaining to use isnt going to do anything. So if Wikipedia is so bad- why do you sit there fixing it? :XD: +1 it also makes a great springboard.. to find info then check on other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Wikipedia was a good concept and is still a good source to start research with, but it has been ruined somewhat by the vandalism. For example, my high school is part of a pretty big inter-city rivalry and students at the other schools like to go on and post degrading things about our sexuality and such on our school's page. And Wiki isn't all that great at catching stuff like that, because there is an alumn who checks it daily and has to fix those things, which happen almost daily. Wikipedia is still a good place to go to point you in the right direction for research, but it jusyt isn't as reliable as was originally intended. On a side note, Citizendium, started by one of the founders of Wikipedia might be a better reference for research papers. It requires 'gentle expert oversight' (i.e. more effective peer review) and people to use their real names. There aren't anywhere near as many articles because it's only just started really. See, even the creators don't like it anymore. The reason that site was made is because Wikipedia got out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monatomic_gas to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_ ... aracter%29 and then you get things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_shea ... h_equation which looks like someone just copied their class notes without bothering to explain them. Many pages like the one above, aren't written in the style of an article. I just clutters up the site with pointless fragments. Wikipedia might be good for things like Sonic, but if you want to get anything detailed beyond a high school level, it's extremely hit and miss. I usually have more success using a search engine which digs up course notes from university websites. It's a good idea in theory, but it attracts the wrong kind of content contributors, you get what you pay for. Don't even get me started on user pages and other stupid e-peen stuff. EG someone a nutritionist could edit in information about a health diet. A microbiologist could edit in information about bacteria, etc. People can share their knowledge. Except the microbiologists and nutritionists are too busy with their real lives to contribute, and even then they need to cite sources for everything they say. The only experts you find are anime or video game fans, or autistic people who have to write very detailed pages about the must mundane topics (like light bulbs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Reason 3: Once an article has false info in it, an administrator locks the article from editing and no one can fix it. No one except those who have more than a certain amount of edits. :wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I get a lot of good grades because of wikipedia. VERY speficif info. Once, i did a report where we needed 5. I noticed that in the 4 other sources, all the info i obtained was on the wikipedia article. You can save a lot of time with just one source (if you're allowed to use only one). Wikipedia can be edited by anyone eh? haven't you forgotten that any site can be made by anyone and contain false info? "don't use wikipedia, a well-known, reputationable site with a few vandals! instead, use a random site off google that could have been made and edited by anyone!" [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smapla Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I have known many reasons of why Wikipedia sucks, and why it sucked to other people. If you do not understand, please read this thread. Reason 1: The editors edit articles or articles, poorly researched (or not even researched at all) That's why the allow people to edit them. If you don't know anything about an article, why would you edit it? Only specialists would edit it, unless you're just editting it to be a jerk. Reason 2: Anybody can edit it, then some dumb nuts come and put false info in it and the editors think that everything everybody puts in is false. Obviously the editors are aware of that. After every editting, a before and after file is made. If an article is wrong, they can revert back to before it was wrong. Reason 3: Once an article has false info in it, an administrator locks the article from editing and no one can fix it. This only happens after constant abuse. And, they will change the article back to the way it was before the vandalism. Reason 4: Once a false info is put in and is removed, they revert that edit back to the revision with false info. What the hell are you talking about? Reason 5: They are liars. When you edit, behind the editing box says do not copy things off another site. On the wrestler's articles, they got it off OWW and that is against that rule so they suck. How do you know that the other site didn't copy them? You all must understand why it sucks. A lot of people hate it, and so do I. I try to edit it masterly researched but they revert it. You may not believe this, but it is true. No crying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmms Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 all of those reason make wiki great:) i love vandalizing my school lame wiki page Aefx(started 11/1/2002) Cb: 200 TS: 1900+Bmms--Jr(Started on 1/24/06)(Banned 11/13/09 ) Cb: 119(pre-eoc) TS: 1700+Bmms(Started 8/?/2001)(Banned 1/24/06 ) Cb: 101(pre-eoc) TS: 1350+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocobodude0 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 I love reading Wikipedia.. But actually using it as a source for a paper, project, etc.? Not likely. I used it once as a source and my teacher told me never use it again. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now