Can we all agree about wikipedia?

[Vendetta]

By the way in post #39 zygominibytes don't exist

 

[croak]

By the way in post #39 zygominibytes don't exist

Your posts are the only search results for that word. You should trademark it. Maybe start a Wikipedia article.

 

[Songbird]

By the way in post #39 zygominibytes don't exist

I'd like a number 39 - yeah, the zygominibytes, with fries and a Coke, please.

 

[Vendetta]

Ah dang is it one of those words that goes viral over the net?

 

[croak]

Ah dang is it one of those words that goes viral over the net?

If it does, hey, you'll be famous! :yes:

 

[Gunny]

I love Wiki. Spend at least an hour a day on it, mainly reading about famous and/or ancient battles and wars. I find them to be extremely accurate with hardly any bias at all. It's easily one of the 10 best websites on the internet. You can find anything there and just get lost for hours. I love it. I'm a history buff so it's perfect for me.

Every once in a while I see people attack Wiki. I just rack that up to people having the natural urge to complain about something/anything.

 

[SageTree]

I think there is difference in referring someone to a wiki article so that they can have some ground knowledge on a subject and quoting it like its the infallible gospel.

There are very specific topics that I myself have noticed some personal embellishment and myself always check the sources for the reference, and do a little digging into the author/ book reviews on the topic etc...

It's a jumping point imo.

Which is why I sarcastically say 'that sounds like one for the wiki-gods' when there is a topic the group knows nothing about, because it always delivers an answer in SOME fashion.

 

[Warren Clark]

Well, wiki isn't all that bias anymore.
Its security is very high now.
You can't even make an edit with out a proper citation.

 

[Warren Clark]

Personally, I prefer Britannica Online, but what do I know?

Gr you have to pay to get full articles. :thud:

 

[ChristineES]

It seems that many here use wikipedia as a reference. I personally consider wikipedia to be biased, and inaccurate. If we can agree that wikipedia may be unreliable, due to its nature(a community-edited project), can we find an online encyclopedia to agree upon?

Since just about any source can be biased, I usually check more than one source.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But as Alceste pointed out, the great thing about Wikipedia is that it uses citations. Its claims are verifiable. Don't believe what it says? Follow the citation and check for yourself. Britannia is not so easily verifiable, you have to trust that it summarizes its source material accurately.

 

[Vendetta]

I guess I don't like Wikipedia especially in matters of debating scientific and/or psychological debates because a lot of times because people normally don't like to read, or know how to read research articles or want to put in the effort in researching their position. Research especially scientific ones are always being replicated and changed due to new findings so while this person my think this particular vaccine for immunization is ineffective against zygominibytes while using a Wikipedia source, I may point out in a recent research study that although it is true one series of a vaccine proves ineffective, a three series vaccination shows complete immunization against zygominibytes.