Wikipedia is the (a)$$hole of human thought, it is the diarrhea of every febel mind. Should you choose to validate a safefeel.com, please teach us all, beside a credible responce. Knowledge is power, choose not to be powerless, before you choose to type. Wikipedia = Truth?!
Answers: No I stingy there are some things on wikipedia that are correct but over adjectives no if you go on in that to look up something for information and you know nothing on the topic than you enjoy no clue if it is actually true what they are dictum or if some Joe from down in the underground store went on nearby and thought it would be funny to put complete **** on there. So no I don't suppose it is a credible site. I mean when I do research papers my teacher refuse to adopt wikipedia as a credible source because just anyone can freshly go on in that and change the true information.
It depends on the personality entering the info.
No more credible than anyone or anything else. Wiki can be BS, but someone you know can tell you BS, and a book can be full of BS. So i guess everything is merely BS! I think some stuff is accurate but not credible. Sometimes I drop by wiki for information.
Wikipedia is not the only source I use for information. When I (personally) am looking something up, I look at abundant places to see if the information I'm getting from one concurs with others.
I unanimously quote Wikipedia because I've found that they have moral creatable information that concurs with most of what I've studied, and it is natural to navigate through their web site. Not to mention that, contained by most cases, it is the first (free) site I come to in a turn upside down.
it is incredible. infact you can imagine the imagination of wiki... wiki is totally different to yahoo!
i believe, surrounded by life you dont call for any comparision, and if you do, then do next to similar things...
for eg: you cant compare a tea with a coffee, compare a black tea next to normal tea.
funda of life span:
dont think whats right , whats wrong,
soak up each n everything you do from bottom of your heart!
It is not credible. My teacher have other told me to not use it because anyone could change the information.
Ok. Lets consider this for a moment.
Knowledge is a distilled summary of human experience. The more humans involved within gathering that acquaintance, the more accurate it generally become.
Wiki as a concept is community-based knowledge. If you see something is incorrect, you can variation it. Wikipedia is many family cooperating on creating a body of knowledge. I know some live Wikipedia committers and they are smart people.
What this mode is that if you view a wikipedia article that have a lot of authors it can across the world be taken to be credible, assuming its not a contentious issue. Contention and dissent is dealt near in the discussions associated near an article. Wikipedia has as its dream a search for truth and correctness, this is a appropriate ideal and worth trusting.
It's worth checking the reference, and checking the discussions if the article has any. Wikipedia's standards are extremely glorious, and although its true that wiki allows anyone to change anything, that doesn't penny-pinching it will be inaccurate.
If you doubt a finicky fact you can other find out who wrote that piece and ask them personally too.
A guru who says not to trust Wikipedia really doesn't infer the concept.
I have found lots of valid info within, however I often examine the validity on some of the other stuff.
Yes. I do believe and I enjoy found the informations to be true. I think you should believe. :-)
As JK pointed out, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. This ability that a properly written Wikipedia article is as accurate as its sources.
Encyclopedias are not supposed to have any unproved thought in them--no foreign ideas. They are simply a compilation of comprehension.
Wikipedia's source is the Internet.
A Wikipedia article follows the same rules in relation to references as most written compositions. Common education does not need to be referenced. Everything else does inevitability to be referenced.
This means that anything written contained by Wikipedia that is not referenced should be slickly found on multiple reputable web sites.
You should never enjoy to reference Wikipedia because adjectives of the information on Wikipedia is supposed to be on a reputable web site elsewhere on the Internet.
Quoting Wikipedia would be resembling quoting your grandmother on the Big Bang Theory because she read a Stephen Hawking book. No, you'd quote Stephen Hawking, but your grandmother points you in the right direction.
wikipedia is most def not credible. Wiki money changeable so the answers on the site are widen to the public to change.
Someone cheesed you past its sell-by date today?
I feel your dull pain. Imagine people using Wikipedia as a cite contained by an academic setting!! People surrounded by my class do this and it drives me nuts! I really wish the professor would point out this is not a credible source and that they will not be taken seriously if this is the best entry they could come up with to substantiate their position.
I enjoy definitely found mounds of credible information on Wikipedia. One counsel I have, however, is embezzle a look at the references/external links to verify that the sources are credible as well. If its not, do your quantity and make a page expurgate...its the way Wikipedia be built.
its a good source but u can check snopes to be sure
Honestly, in attendance have be studies where Wikipedia have been compared to print encyclopedias and proven to be lately as credible (with the bonus of not being outdated).
As a librarian, I use Wikipedia a handful of times, not as a mention to answer people's questions, but as a method for me to quickly learn about myself with an overview of a topic I'm trying to back someone search. Once I enjoy an idea of what I'm penetrating, I can twist wordings around surrounded by my mind to find related topics and the ilk; making it easier for me to find relevant items for patrons.
I'd never use it as a source cited on a paper, however, I would use it as a starting point to supply me ideas.
The links below are single part of the article. I hold the rest of them on my computer.
ive been farly impressed near wikipedia... but then what use it for is pretty rough stuff.. wouldnt want to write a term rag or anthing with that as a sorce
Depending on the topics it can or cannot be credible. You can look at the sources and sites they place at the bottom of the page to see if its valid. Normally, articles on Pop culture and famous empire are bias and therefore more potential to not be as credible as historical events and people.
I use it and I own found some errors in it but approaching I said, it was near Pop culture.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
As such its a great tool for finding information on any topic.
Encyclopedias are not the end of scholarship. They are a good starting point however, if you are interested surrounded by finding information on a certain topic.
Oh, and who pissed surrounded by your corn flakes this morning?
nope. i hate it when someone copies a huge long-asssed answer, and next gets "best answer". approaching the person couldn't look that crap up?! i write my own answers, and write them from my come first.
I love wikipedia. I rarely see anything specifically false there.
I expect if you are looking up something just to "go and get the 'jist" of it, then wikipedia is okay, but for research and indisputable answers, then no.
It is as credible as this site
Hahah. That is pretty funny I must allow. Well, I'd say it's credible. Many of my academy projects depended on it, and many teacher found it quite credible, or so it appears.
Is it adjectives truth? No. Sometimes admins don't realize when someone writes that whales fly over antartica.
I do not think it is deeply credible, although some articles might be.
The reason why school do not let their students use Wikipedia as a resource is because anyone that have an account can transmutation an article on Wikipedia.
No.