I think Wikipedia is a great thing. It REALLY accelerates the learning process for those not best adaptive to the traditional education setting. However, even though it has been shown to be very accurate in "hard" scientific facts, you have to be very careful about what you're reading, especially with regards to the humanities and social sciences. Here, there is just so much more room for someone with an agenda to nuance the article into bias or even outright falsehood.
most Wikipedia pages have a little number besides each statement that when you click on it takes you to the reference where it came from and you can verify it. When no reference is available it usually says "Citation needed" instead of the little number or it's left blank in which case you know there's no reference.
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of information because it is crowd sourced and cannot be biased by corrupting influences.
Remember, Remember the 5th of November the gun powder, treason, and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder, treason, and plot should ever be forgot..,.
Remember, Remember the 5th of November the gun powder, treason, and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder, treason, and plot should ever be forgot.,.
Remember, Remember the 5th of November the gun powder, treason, and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder, treason, and plot should ever be forgot.
"Pirillo was born on July 26, 1853 in Des Moines, Iowa. He studied at the University of Northern Iowa, where he majored in English education. For a short time, he was a teenage girl name Cindy at Coke R. Stevenson Middle School in San Antonio, Texas."...
Wikipedia can really only be defined as a living encyclopedia. It's living in the sense that certain languages, like English, are living - meaning that they are always growing, expanding, and evolving. That said, yes there is a lot of vandalism and misinformation on Wikipedia, but I think in general it is a good place to find information, given that you further research the validity of any information that you find useful on there. I'm tired of Jimmy Wales begging for money all the time though.
there is a reason, why wikipedia is not acceptable in scientific work, specifically as a reliable source of information, on which one cold base ones research.
@vanidar21 I don't really agree with their reasoning for doing that. While I do agree that all information on Wikipedia should NOT be taken as fact, it's a great place to find info that you can and SHOULD turn around and verify sources on and look into further. I think it's a fantastic starting point for any research project, especially when you can use the articles to find a plethora of good further reading in the references section.
Wikipedia editors do a pretty good job of flagging questionable content (content that lacks references, etc.) so for the most part you can be confident about the information provided. Nonsense is pretty easy to spot, and if you are concerned you can always check the references being sited. I dislike when laypeople automatically dismiss wikipedia entirely because they feel it's not reliably accurate.
I love when people say any article can be edited. That is very false, as an article grows until it is complete they leave it open, when it has been verified beyond belief and holds up to scholary encyclopedic standards it gets locked where it can not be edited further unless in the discussion page of the article it is determined the article requires an addition and goes through a process before being added or rejected. I trust locked articles, and normal articles as long as the parts are sourced
@dutchuniverse I would say that Wikipedia is usually very reliable. The biggest exception is when it gets vandalised. However, when it's not vandalism, Wikipedia is generally more reliable than most other sources of information.
@dutchuniverse you dont find errors becuase i have spent my whole life editing every page on wikipedia to make it perfect. (not really i dont have time to do that)
I liked Wikipedia when it had a lot more articles. I remember the huge article on Black Mesa Research Facility. Interesting read on a fictional location.
The problem with wikiapedia is that the information can be completely removed from a wikipedia site and things can be hidden if not lost to the world. When information that far to many think is the end all and can't be fully trusted because of a lack of accountability on the side of wikipedia, you have people who actually are offended when they can't use wikipedia directly as a resource link and don't get how dangerous it really is, when you don't have accountability for what's being posted.
Print encyclopedias have lots of shortcomings, too. They're out of date by the time they go to the press, for example. In many cases articles are shorter than they are on Wikipedia. They cost a lot of money.
Either source is just a starting point, though. No serious argument is going to begin and end with any type of encyclopedia.
I don't think Wikipedia needs to be changed at all. Perhaps there needs to be an alternative, but Wikipedia itself is fine as it is. I understand the need for a more authoritative source, but that would be better served if say Britannica, for example, started their own online encyclopedia. Then you could cross-reference one to the other.
But there is no way i would want any authority controlling the information that goes up on Wikipedia. That would defeat the whole purpose of it.
There have been studies with experts comparing a random sample of pages on Wikipeida and traditional encyclopedias and the error rate is basically the same. Wikipedia is far superior to encyclopedias.
the one source we were always advised to stay away from in uni? wikipedia, the problem being what you just said there chris, anyone can edit an article. we were told to stay away from it, not to cite it and not use it
Hands down, more topics are covered by Wikipedia. If a book-bound encyclopedia existed with as much info as Wikipedia, the thickness of all volumes laid side-by-side would be exactly 17.642 miles.
And since I know nobody is going to check my sources, I'm going to make that claim with complete confidence.
Wikipedia is not a good site to cite, but it's a good place to start. You can brief yourself about a certain subject. You can also click on the links at the bottom of the page which could be a reliable source.
Wikipedia could be better. You know how some articles are semi-protected? Only editors with an account that has been active for a while can make edits to those articles. ALL articles should be that way. The wikipedia bots are getting better though, they seem to remove vandalism very quick.
@lockergnome I'd say go to Wikipedia to get a quick broad knowledge of things. But I wouldn't depend on Wikipedia solely. I also had only encyclopedias up to like 6th grade. LOL I hated encyclopedias because they were so big, had outdated information, and was very cumbersome to use.
I hate my school... they blocked Wikipedia! THEY FREAKING BLOCKED IT! Wth? It's not like it's porn, what if we need it? Noooo it's unreliable! God forbid I use Wikipedia. Although this is the school I got scolded at for asking why my test hadn't been graded yet even though everyone else's had and it was 1 day till the end of the quarter. Teachers... don't know anything about present day technology. It's sad.
Chris is more of a Federalist than an Anti-Federalist. He would like more supreme power (Wikipedia in this case), and have less state power (which in this case are the everyday editors that might vandalize). I like his view; he is more of a Madison or Hamilton than a Patrick Henry or George Mason.
Dear Chris: I strongly disagree. I'm a scholar, and I've found so much made-up stuff in Wikipedia that I find it appalling. There are errors in traditional encyclopedias, too, but not not the type of outrageous nonsense that one finds in Wikipedia all the time.
From what we get told on my degree course Wikipedia is not a trusted source because anyone can change the things up there so their not valid. The best thing I have found is to use the links at the bottom of the page listed under their references that way you get the original source of the information and is 9 times out of 10 accurate.
Actually, Wikipedia does not work like this at all. It's not about the opinions of Wikipedians on things. You must get evidence and references from good sources for every thing you write. So, experts write their articles and Wikipedians gather these writings to make a good Wikipedia article which is cited by these sources.
Wikipedia does often link to many authoritative sources that can be used for serious academic work. Although I have blurted out stuff I have read on Wikipedia and discovered it is just plain wrong.
It bothers me SOOOO much when my teachers say over and over "Wikipedia is not reliable or accurate." Well... yes, but pages are moderated before they are published. And also the "look for the .orgs!" Well.. I can buy a .org domain just the same as a .com!
@Intronetz Agreed. I don't see why they still think it's an unreliable source. Sure, anyone can go in there in modify it, but the original article is posted by someone credible and the article has to be verified before it can be on Wikipedia. Teachers also asking for ".org"s, ".edu"s, and ".gov"s is also a pet peeve of mine. I all of these years of high school, I have found and used a lot of websites that end in .com and have reliable information.
@Intronetz Even with moderators, the articles can still be unreliable. It depends on whether the author or the moderator is knowledgable on the subject. Most teachers don't recommend searching for .org domains. They recommend searching .edu domains, which can only be registered by certain educational institutions.
Teachers are right when they say wikipedia isn't a reliable SOURCE. However, I don't think teachers understand that wikipedia often cites their sources on the bottom, and you can cite those sources. They wouldn't even know you were directed to those sources from wikipedia.
Wikipedia is one of the most valuable resources we have on the internet, they must not 'get it'.
@Intronetz Wikipedia is the best place to get general information about things. And usually it's accurate or if it's not it's obviously wrong so you can just ignore the page. And yeah the only real TLD that has any more authority are the .gov/.edu ones which only the government and colleges/universities can register.
Wiki is better but the fact anyone can edit the info puts it in a state of distrust among a lot of people. If a online encyclopedia was as dynamic, by taking submissions, but only allowing verified facts, only allowing employees to add the info, that would be my choice. We are in a age of communication, but with that comes retards who want to destroy what we've built up.
Wikipedia has it's use as does traditional Encyclopedias. For example Wikipedia is great for it's accessibility, but as a "final" source for information it must be used with discretion. As you pointed out with your own page & remember when Steven Colbert got ppl to change Wiki's page on elephants lol. Also try handing in a post secondary paper with Wiki' as your source of info... you couldn't because your paper wouldn't be accepted. It has it's place, but it shouldn't be used as the "final word"
Wikipedia is fantastic. It's unfortunate how teachers won't accept it as a source. Sure it's shouldn't be the only source but it should still be considered ok to use.
I think Wikipedia is a great thing. It REALLY accelerates the learning process for those not best adaptive to the traditional education setting. However, even though it has been shown to be very accurate in "hard" scientific facts, you have to be very careful about what you're reading, especially with regards to the humanities and social sciences. Here, there is just so much more room for someone with an agenda to nuance the article into bias or even outright falsehood.
LexingtonWells 2 months ago
I came here for Encyclopedia Dramatica... I am disappoint.
GKrizzel 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
most Wikipedia pages have a little number besides each statement that when you click on it takes you to the reference where it came from and you can verify it. When no reference is available it usually says "Citation needed" instead of the little number or it's left blank in which case you know there's no reference.
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of information because it is crowd sourced and cannot be biased by corrupting influences.
Zicologo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember, Remember the 5th of November the gun powder, treason, and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder, treason, and plot should ever be forgot..,.
guitarboy00cp 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember, Remember the 5th of November the gun powder, treason, and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder, treason, and plot should ever be forgot.,.
guitarboy00cp 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember, Remember the 5th of November the gun powder, treason, and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder, treason, and plot should ever be forgot.
guitarboy00cp 3 months ago
"Pirillo was born on July 26, 1853 in Des Moines, Iowa. He studied at the University of Northern Iowa, where he majored in English education. For a short time, he was a teenage girl name Cindy at Coke R. Stevenson Middle School in San Antonio, Texas."...
AyleidCraft 3 months ago
One of the guilty pleasures of students nowadays is the use of Wikipedia. #DamnItsTrue
gariouscom 3 months ago
Wikipedia CAN be wrong, but same goes for Encyclopedia.
Wikipedia for a basic gist on a topic: great!
For a thesis or something serious: backing up the info with other sources recommended. Good thing the internet is soooo big!
max82power 3 months ago
Wikipedia can really only be defined as a living encyclopedia. It's living in the sense that certain languages, like English, are living - meaning that they are always growing, expanding, and evolving. That said, yes there is a lot of vandalism and misinformation on Wikipedia, but I think in general it is a good place to find information, given that you further research the validity of any information that you find useful on there. I'm tired of Jimmy Wales begging for money all the time though.
deficitcrew 3 months ago
In my college we arent allowed to go on wiki for work
Silentdj92 3 months ago
there is a reason, why wikipedia is not acceptable in scientific work, specifically as a reliable source of information, on which one cold base ones research.
vanidar21 3 months ago
@vanidar21 I don't really agree with their reasoning for doing that. While I do agree that all information on Wikipedia should NOT be taken as fact, it's a great place to find info that you can and SHOULD turn around and verify sources on and look into further. I think it's a fantastic starting point for any research project, especially when you can use the articles to find a plethora of good further reading in the references section.
deficitcrew 3 months ago
Wikipedia editors do a pretty good job of flagging questionable content (content that lacks references, etc.) so for the most part you can be confident about the information provided. Nonsense is pretty easy to spot, and if you are concerned you can always check the references being sited. I dislike when laypeople automatically dismiss wikipedia entirely because they feel it's not reliably accurate.
remingtonh 3 months ago
I hate wikipedia spammers. Those people that go to wikipedia only to make the site worse should not be allowed to change pages.
rgregoryoa 3 months ago
Comment removed
rgregoryoa 3 months ago
I love when people say any article can be edited. That is very false, as an article grows until it is complete they leave it open, when it has been verified beyond belief and holds up to scholary encyclopedic standards it gets locked where it can not be edited further unless in the discussion page of the article it is determined the article requires an addition and goes through a process before being added or rejected. I trust locked articles, and normal articles as long as the parts are sourced
JamesCizuz 3 months ago
Is it strange that I never found error's in Wikipedia?
Or am I just low educated?
dutchuniverse 3 months ago
@dutchuniverse I would say that Wikipedia is usually very reliable. The biggest exception is when it gets vandalised. However, when it's not vandalism, Wikipedia is generally more reliable than most other sources of information.
LOTRzagorath 3 months ago
@dutchuniverse you dont find errors becuase i have spent my whole life editing every page on wikipedia to make it perfect. (not really i dont have time to do that)
rgregoryoa 3 months ago
I am not allowed to use wikipedia in my university assignments
GreetingEarthlings 3 months ago
@GreetingEarthlings Check the current top comment.
- go to a Wikipedia article.
- Go to the references section
- click on one of the links, it will take you to another site.
- use that site as a reference for your report.
LOTRzagorath 3 months ago
Wiki FTW mate!
WetzylOnline 3 months ago in playlist More videos from lockergnome
Chris, have you ever created a Wikipedia page?
Wiejeben 3 months ago in playlist More videos from lockergnome
I just wikied you chris and you dont look 38
leftspeaker2000 3 months ago
I'm not reading wikipedia for opinion. I don't care who posted the article, I care if it's fact.
Zsmart 3 months ago
I liked Wikipedia when it had a lot more articles. I remember the huge article on Black Mesa Research Facility. Interesting read on a fictional location.
WhiteRAZOR 3 months ago
Wikipedia #FTW
Yovillespoliers 3 months ago
My physics instructor says that Wikipedia has good science entries.
itsDoubleAA10 3 months ago
Wikipedia is not accurate
misstechreviewer18 3 months ago
You said "Physical Books" and I just shuttered.
aaronred345 3 months ago 5
has to be approved before its truly edited, otherwise its simply a request.
I doubt you can edit something with complete crap without someone confirming if its true or not.
rysliv 3 months ago 2
Better is relative
COENTJE97 3 months ago
Why does this kid have a wikipedia page he's not famous
HankKill93 3 months ago
The problem with wikiapedia is that the information can be completely removed from a wikipedia site and things can be hidden if not lost to the world. When information that far to many think is the end all and can't be fully trusted because of a lack of accountability on the side of wikipedia, you have people who actually are offended when they can't use wikipedia directly as a resource link and don't get how dangerous it really is, when you don't have accountability for what's being posted.
Kerns0Phoegon 3 months ago
Print encyclopedias have lots of shortcomings, too. They're out of date by the time they go to the press, for example. In many cases articles are shorter than they are on Wikipedia. They cost a lot of money.
Either source is just a starting point, though. No serious argument is going to begin and end with any type of encyclopedia.
dussin23 3 months ago
I don't think Wikipedia needs to be changed at all. Perhaps there needs to be an alternative, but Wikipedia itself is fine as it is. I understand the need for a more authoritative source, but that would be better served if say Britannica, for example, started their own online encyclopedia. Then you could cross-reference one to the other.
But there is no way i would want any authority controlling the information that goes up on Wikipedia. That would defeat the whole purpose of it.
RealityIsAnOpinion 3 months ago
Great view ;)
SayonaraProduction 3 months ago
Wikipedia needs a "Was this topic well explained?" button
Baalund 3 months ago
@Baalund it is at the end of the entry via the rate the page box
PaulMrThe 3 months ago
@PaulMrThe yeah.. Too bad they didn't make that option global
Baalund 3 months ago
have you been having problems with your iphone 4s battery life?
crushisme999 3 months ago
soo chris. have you bought your steve jobs autobiography?
crushisme999 3 months ago
I hate my life :)
skewb40 3 months ago in playlist Meer video's van lockergnome
There have been studies with experts comparing a random sample of pages on Wikipeida and traditional encyclopedias and the error rate is basically the same. Wikipedia is far superior to encyclopedias.
Excruci0 3 months ago
wikipedia . org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Pirillo&diff=prev&oldid=457067836
lol, the page says one of his projects is "being a homo" :D
Waendchen 3 months ago
I didn't watch the video cause i was sure Chris will say "Encyclopedia is dead"
spyridonas23 3 months ago
You mean you want creditability not authority. Authority can be "officially" unreliable and untrue. Good day!
baihbalm 3 months ago
Tradition<Modern day technology. This goes for everything. Newspapers should die
DBZisthebestanimever 3 months ago
the one source we were always advised to stay away from in uni? wikipedia, the problem being what you just said there chris, anyone can edit an article. we were told to stay away from it, not to cite it and not use it
Sparkycaf 3 months ago
- go to a Wikipedia article.
- Go to the references section
- click on one of the links, it will take you to another site.
- use that site as a reference for your report.
u mad, teacher ? *trollface*
880User088 3 months ago 68
@880User088 You, me, and 34 others clearly do this :D
LOTRzagorath 3 months ago
@880User088 LOL i didn't know about that. Thanks though :]
TheGeeksftw 3 months ago
Hands down, more topics are covered by Wikipedia. If a book-bound encyclopedia existed with as much info as Wikipedia, the thickness of all volumes laid side-by-side would be exactly 17.642 miles.
And since I know nobody is going to check my sources, I'm going to make that claim with complete confidence.
pburto 3 months ago
Are people actually asking these questions? Or are these just random thoughts?
moviedude269 3 months ago
Encyclopedia Dramatica is the most truthful source of information on the internet.
joshuahardy95 3 months ago
A lot of times wikipedia is worse than a regular encyclopedia. Because sometimes things are not explained well, and lacks sources.
szymon308 3 months ago
@szymon308 That happens on regular encyclopedias too.
ThrashMetalForces 3 months ago
Wikipedia is not a good site to cite, but it's a good place to start. You can brief yourself about a certain subject. You can also click on the links at the bottom of the page which could be a reliable source.
paulalger11 3 months ago
Wikipedia could be better. You know how some articles are semi-protected? Only editors with an account that has been active for a while can make edits to those articles. ALL articles should be that way. The wikipedia bots are getting better though, they seem to remove vandalism very quick.
ProudAtheist90 3 months ago
Some people at school think Wikipedia is bad just because anyone can edit it... It annoys the crap out of me every time I hear it
uDaeth 3 months ago
Woot! Electric Sheep screensaver! Also, I think Wikipedia is MUCH better...by a longshot.
ScienceOfThePS3 3 months ago
@lockergnome I'd say go to Wikipedia to get a quick broad knowledge of things. But I wouldn't depend on Wikipedia solely. I also had only encyclopedias up to like 6th grade. LOL I hated encyclopedias because they were so big, had outdated information, and was very cumbersome to use.
suiton629 3 months ago
thumbs up if you think this guy needs to get his dick in a nice pair of fuzzy buns
cusemanhornman 3 months ago
@lockergnome Ipod touch VS Iphone 4/4s
lover209408 3 months ago
I paused at 0:00. There is no argument here. Wikipedia.
dirtylogs 3 months ago
"Pirillo was born on July 26, 1923 in Des Moines, Iowa. He studied at the University of Northern Iowa, where he majored in English education."
sims3loser 3 months ago 19
@sims3loser and within 5 minutes....
dirtylogs 3 months ago
@dirtylogs what?
sims3loser 3 months ago
@sims3loser 1923?? are you kidding.
MrJufri90 3 months ago
@lockergnome this is why you should not do videos on your Wiki Page. I'd remove that last edit on your page Chris.
sutty6 3 months ago
@sutty6 Looks like you got it already.
sutty6 3 months ago
wikipeadia is good as a starting point but something such as encyclopedia britannica has more content that gives you more accuate and factual
rainbow6vegaslover 3 months ago
I like Chris Pirillo's screensavers.
CCPcakes 3 months ago
@CCPcakes screensaver. also it's electric sheep fyi
minijawz 3 months ago
i just checked chris' wikipidia and hes 38? damn. wouldnt have guessed that
TheRatchetkid 3 months ago
@TheRatchetkid I just did the same. I thought he was about 25!
AJX000 3 months ago
Wikipedia is run by a bunch of white supremacist nazis.
dfr343 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hate my school... they blocked Wikipedia! THEY FREAKING BLOCKED IT! Wth? It's not like it's porn, what if we need it? Noooo it's unreliable! God forbid I use Wikipedia. Although this is the school I got scolded at for asking why my test hadn't been graded yet even though everyone else's had and it was 1 day till the end of the quarter. Teachers... don't know anything about present day technology. It's sad.
dielan44 3 months ago
Comment removed
dielan44 3 months ago
Encyclopedia has almost no information, it's so bad >.<
renegade8164 3 months ago
Wikipedia didn't exist when I was in school!
talldude123 3 months ago
chris you make things explain very simple to know everything i like your show alot :)
SuperSungin 3 months ago
Chris is more of a Federalist than an Anti-Federalist. He would like more supreme power (Wikipedia in this case), and have less state power (which in this case are the everyday editors that might vandalize). I like his view; he is more of a Madison or Hamilton than a Patrick Henry or George Mason.
Zanpaktou1313 3 months ago
I looked on your wikipedia page when you said you were a teen girl once. It says you own twitter. Is that true or not? if so, thats pretty cool.
MegaGeekTutorials 3 months ago
Dear Chris: I strongly disagree. I'm a scholar, and I've found so much made-up stuff in Wikipedia that I find it appalling. There are errors in traditional encyclopedias, too, but not not the type of outrageous nonsense that one finds in Wikipedia all the time.
tantzer 3 months ago
0:24 HYUDGE!!!
benaside 3 months ago
From what we get told on my degree course Wikipedia is not a trusted source because anyone can change the things up there so their not valid. The best thing I have found is to use the links at the bottom of the page listed under their references that way you get the original source of the information and is 9 times out of 10 accurate.
prepre73 3 months ago
You can't trust anything nowadays!
flyphoenix22 3 months ago
oh, dear chris, your always full of wisdom
SwabSiEm 3 months ago
Actually, Wikipedia does not work like this at all. It's not about the opinions of Wikipedians on things. You must get evidence and references from good sources for every thing you write. So, experts write their articles and Wikipedians gather these writings to make a good Wikipedia article which is cited by these sources.
alilsheikh 3 months ago
QUESTION: Does the iPhone need a bigger screen?
NJanf 3 months ago
Puzzle me this then, how did you know the person to write a certain piece in the encyclopedia knew "the the hell they are talking about".
tmar23 3 months ago
Wikipedia does often link to many authoritative sources that can be used for serious academic work. Although I have blurted out stuff I have read on Wikipedia and discovered it is just plain wrong.
HenryMonmouth 3 months ago
sickapedia is what its all about
Boothroyd1992 3 months ago
Microsoft vs Sony
kidrad6 3 months ago
whore buns ;p
Yonnlopez 3 months ago
your pj's
archebeats 3 months ago
It bothers me SOOOO much when my teachers say over and over "Wikipedia is not reliable or accurate." Well... yes, but pages are moderated before they are published. And also the "look for the .orgs!" Well.. I can buy a .org domain just the same as a .com!
Intronetz 3 months ago 85
Sorry to say but it is inaccurate
thereddog223 3 months ago
@Intronetz yeah, our 20 year old text books are far less accurate.
ThoseTechGuys 3 months ago
@Intronetz Agreed. I don't see why they still think it's an unreliable source. Sure, anyone can go in there in modify it, but the original article is posted by someone credible and the article has to be verified before it can be on Wikipedia. Teachers also asking for ".org"s, ".edu"s, and ".gov"s is also a pet peeve of mine. I all of these years of high school, I have found and used a lot of websites that end in .com and have reliable information.
saxman112 3 months ago
@Intronetz Even with moderators, the articles can still be unreliable. It depends on whether the author or the moderator is knowledgable on the subject. Most teachers don't recommend searching for .org domains. They recommend searching .edu domains, which can only be registered by certain educational institutions.
MrGamerGui 3 months ago
@Intronetz
The teachers that say that are fucking idiots.
SketchyGamerMan 3 months ago
@Intronetz Just go to Wikipedia for your project and show them all the cited sources that are at the bottom.
thaicheese 3 months ago
@Intronetz
Teachers are right when they say wikipedia isn't a reliable SOURCE. However, I don't think teachers understand that wikipedia often cites their sources on the bottom, and you can cite those sources. They wouldn't even know you were directed to those sources from wikipedia.
Wikipedia is one of the most valuable resources we have on the internet, they must not 'get it'.
AngilasGuy 3 months ago
@Intronetz My teachers do that to! :(
15butcherj 3 months ago
@Intronetz No, the articles aren't moderated before they are published. They are moderated AFTER they're published.
False information can be there for hours, days or if the article is not popular maybe a lot more.
plasticPlaystation 3 months ago
@Intronetz Wikipedia is the best place to get general information about things. And usually it's accurate or if it's not it's obviously wrong so you can just ignore the page. And yeah the only real TLD that has any more authority are the .gov/.edu ones which only the government and colleges/universities can register.
cusinndzl 3 months ago
If someone posts something on wikipedia there should be a vote on if it should be added. If ≥75% say yes than it would get posted.
keco185 3 months ago 39
@keco185 its so easy for people to just down-vote for the sake of down-voting if the don't like the subject matter
tminustech 3 months ago
@keco185 just who would be voting. cause i dont go there to vote or rate.
xLowLightx 3 months ago
Wiki is better but the fact anyone can edit the info puts it in a state of distrust among a lot of people. If a online encyclopedia was as dynamic, by taking submissions, but only allowing verified facts, only allowing employees to add the info, that would be my choice. We are in a age of communication, but with that comes retards who want to destroy what we've built up.
wolfeedarkfang 3 months ago
Wikipedia has it's use as does traditional Encyclopedias. For example Wikipedia is great for it's accessibility, but as a "final" source for information it must be used with discretion. As you pointed out with your own page & remember when Steven Colbert got ppl to change Wiki's page on elephants lol. Also try handing in a post secondary paper with Wiki' as your source of info... you couldn't because your paper wouldn't be accepted. It has it's place, but it shouldn't be used as the "final word"
SeeBillyRun 3 months ago
Encyclopedia Dramatica beats both.
saiyaniam 3 months ago
I love wikipedia but it isn't always accurate.
OwtDaftUK 3 months ago
Wikipedia is fantastic. It's unfortunate how teachers won't accept it as a source. Sure it's shouldn't be the only source but it should still be considered ok to use.
cavsrock08 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
<3 Wikipedia! It gets so much hate from people who don't understand it.
Dugm94 3 months ago
under 100 club im so gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!
deadman5152 3 months ago
35th?
simonarnold84 3 months ago
STILL FIRST!
MegaPokemonshow 3 months ago
wikipedia is better
Saroku12 3 months ago
1st!
MegaPokemonshow 3 months ago