Conquer Club

some see it as a blessing, others see it as the tabloids of encyclopedias. what do YOU think?

Used it many times, it provides a good springboard for more information. However, you cannot quote it in bibliography.

awesome, always a good first place to look if you want info.

It's good for quick information. For instance I had to find out where were some mountain ranges, and what was the highest mountain in them. Very quickly done with wikipedia.

i really think only college professors will vote for the second option.

I don't trust wiki, my friends make stuff all the time. Besides I prefer to trust in more reliable sources such as books, everyone remembers books don't they?

Anarchy Ninja wrote:I don't trust wiki, my friends make stuff all the time. Besides I prefer to trust in more reliable sources such as books, everyone remembers books don't they?

b..oooks...?
books? what a strange word..

Hitman079 wrote:

Anarchy Ninja wrote:I don't trust wiki, my friends make stuff all the time. Besides I prefer to trust in more reliable sources such as books, everyone remembers books don't they?

b..oooks...?
books? what a strange word..

Books. I think I remember something faint. Nope lost it.

Anarchy Ninja wrote:I don't trust wiki, my friends make stuff all the time. Besides I prefer to trust in more reliable sources such as books, everyone remembers books don't they?

sorry to be unlike myself and be serious, but that could take a long time to get the book. It will take up space once you have it and you never know if it even has the right info. The internet is could for lazy people like me.

Thats what the library is for and teachers really dont like it when we have wiki in our bibliography, they prefer more realiable sources, which is not wikipedia

I never believe anything until I read it in Wikipedia.

And if I don't want to believe what I read in Wikipedia, I change it.

Safariguy, Fircoal and Iliad got it right the first time. It's a good place if you want to get initial information on a topic and nowadays most of the articles have a pretty detailed bibliography which you can use if you're going to write an essay or something. For the most part it's as reliable as a normal encyclopaedia. Still, since it's open and and practically anyone can edit it it can not be guaranteed to be 100% reliable. So it's probably a good thing that you can't use it as your main source of information if you're writing a scientific essay.

MeDeFe wrote:Safariguy, Fircoal and Iliad got it right the first time. It's a good place if you want to get initial information on a topic and nowadays most of the articles have a pretty detailed bibliography which you can use if you're going to write an essay or something. For the most part it's as reliable as a normal encyclopaedia. Still, since it's open and and practically anyone can edit it it can not be guaranteed to be 100% reliable. So it's probably a good thing that you can't use it as your main source of information if you're writing a scientific essay.

I agree.

BTW, if you look up Scotland's World Cup record on Wikipedia, and it says Scotland won the World Cup in 1974 and 1978, then I've probably been visiting again.

Anarchy Ninja wrote:I don't trust wiki, my friends make stuff all the time. Besides I prefer to trust in more reliable sources such as books, everyone remembers books don't they?

I do. Have an old encyclopedia set from the 50's and 60's. But wiki does offer links to more reliable data, so I tend to ignore blatant lies posted of the wiki blubs.

Anarchy Ninja wrote:Thats what the library is for and teachers really dont like it when we have wiki in our bibliography, they prefer more realiable sources, which is not wikipedia

You have to walk to get there. -_- I'm lazy.

MeDeFe wrote:Safariguy, Fircoal and Iliad got it right the first time. It's a good place if you want to get initial information on a topic and nowadays most of the articles have a pretty detailed bibliography which you can use if you're going to write an essay or something. For the most part it's as reliable as a normal encyclopaedia. Still, since it's open and and practically anyone can edit it it can not be guaranteed to be 100% reliable. So it's probably a good thing that you can't use it as your main source of information if you're writing a scientific essay.

Yer, pretty much sums it up. I love Wiki!

Wiki's great, but I'd never rely on it as a sole source, a really good portal to other information though as had been said already.

Plus some of the greatest flaming ever happens there on discussions on new entries, truly excellent stuff

Wiki is great springboard, as someone said earlier, and many of the articles are well written and completely accurate.

I teach some undergrad classes and I generally tell them that it is a good place to look if you need a basic fact, for example the year of a certain battle (although you should always verify it from another source and you can never quote or reference wiki) but that they should steer clear of more subjective articles, those which give for and against...

In all honesty, I do think it is one of the more brilliant internet developments of recent times. It is the biggest and most accessible encyclopaedia of all time and, although there are many inaccuracies, it does give access to an enormous amount of information for free!

Not everyone has access to a wonderful university library

Actually, come to think of it, I remember a time when you couldn't so easily get so much information as in Wikipedia, or the net in general. Even when you had dozens of encyclopediae to hand, say in the pathetically understocked school library, or wherever, it was a difficult task to answer even the most innocuous question that popped into your head. Like, say, I don't know, some detail of some forgotten '50's singer, say Jo Stafford, or the population of Ireland in the early 1800's.

So, when you did come across some obscure but apparently well-sourced fact that seemed like it might be worth knowing at some point, you'd burn that into your brain, because you knew you might never come across it again without a great deal of effort.

Now, it's too easy. I don't have a real point, except, kids these days don't know they're born!

in england, the official secretary of education stated that he thought it was a great resource for school children to freely use, whilst the wikipedia founder said that it had developed into an uncontrollable pack of lies

well, thats the labour party for you

[size=0]source of info: have i got news for you[/size]

Anarchy Ninja wrote: Besides I prefer to trust in more reliable sources such as books, everyone remembers books don't they?

What makes you think books are more reliable?

diddle wrote:in england, the official secretary of education stated that he thought it was a great resource for school children to freely use, whilst the wikipedia founder said that it had developed into an uncontrollable pack of lies

well, thats the labour party for you

[size=0]source of info: have i got news for you[/size]

It is a great resource for school children to use. Really great. As long as they take information with a pinch of salt, just as they should take information from newspapers and even academic books with some caution.

In a way, it benefits students and children because it gives them some basic knowledge and challenges them to research the topic further to make sure wikipedia is correct.

And Stopper, you're just jealous because when you were a kid you couldn't completely re-write encyclopaedia descriptions of well known celebrities or add amusing Middle names to your local MP at the touch of a button.

Think of Wikipedia as a massive book with a lot of ridiculous notes in the margin

Its not ture on several occasions...but otherwise its fine.

If Wikipedia was created into real life encyclopedias, how many books will it take up?

There 1 million + for the English Wiki, thats gunna be 500 books with 2,000 entries per book.

Ummm...i always thought of wikipedia as a credible source of information. But i have to do a geography project on a country (im doing Nepal). BUt my geography teacher says that last year, a student did his project using info from only wikipedia...and he failed because less than half of the information was correct!

weird