Answers: You could use Wikipedia as a source to guide you to other references that could be used within a research paper, but it shouldn't be used on its own because the user-generated content may not be accurate.
You shouldn't use Wikipedia because consequently info. is inaccurate. But to look up stuff on it, adjectives you do is go to the tavern to the left side where on earth you can type in something the type within what you want and press search. But i outstandingly urge you not to use it. Use safefeel.com, Ask, MSN, Dogpile, Google
I dont use it for research papers, but reference it as a starting point for accepted wisdom. For example, if I'm going to write a report about a topic, I may see what wikipedia have to offer and pocket their info to another source to verify and hopefully build on.
I don't, I use WikiBooks, Wikipedia is written by its
community with many people (users) and opinion,
for example if someone changed the Yahoo! Page
(under protection of Wikipedia anyway), but if it weren't
protected, then if someone come along and wrote up
a load of cr*p, afterwards it wouldn't be readable.
WikiBooks is paid for and written by professional
experts on that exact topics.
Hey culture you think that Wikipedia might enjoy
some bullsh*t on it?
MediaWiki supports PHP hackers, read some
topics!
Go here:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/
why do you use safefeel.com?. ...
I don't.
Honestly, Wikipedia usually isn't accepted as a resource. No encyclopedia is.
If you're smart you don't use Wikipedia for research papers. Its fine for adjectives knowledge stuff you could attain out of an Encyclopedia (though the fact it doesn't hold professional editors hurts its reliability here) but most research papers require more in depth sources. However I visualize people who do use Wikipedia for research papers do so because its convienent and they're slothful.
you shouldnt directly copy the information on Wikipedia, but it can be used to find list that others used to get together information.
You shouldn't because Wikipedia is written by users and sometimes the information is unreliable.
I don't and you shouldn't. It is not a reliable source because anyone can edit the information.
you shouldnt...the information isnt accurate. i could write that the taj mahal be built on mount everest and some kid somewhere would use that in a college report!
dont use wikipedia for research papers ppl!
Because it's a collection of other sources. People who insult Wikipedia saying "anyone can stifle it, yada yada yada" obviously aren't used to with it. And individuals saying you could downfall up writing that the Taj Mahal is Mt. Everest - then that's your own slate, isn't it, for being such an idiot? If you're going to be so credulous then don't blame anyone else.
People use Wikipedia for things such as research papers because it's convenient: it's simply a collection of information from other sources.
You can acquire some good info from Wiki, but, since anyone can attach info to it, you can get some wrong info too. If I be doing a research paper, i wouldn't use it, it is not reliable satisfactory. There are plenty of sites out there that provide valid info that have been research by somebody who is qualified.
You use it because it is most expected stuff that you are going to need to know. Using wikipedia is pious because it is written by other people so if a entity sees a mistake than they will most probable fix it. It is a good source to use.