Why do you get stupid people answering questions on Yahoo Answers (read on)>>>?

Question

Because all you get is text from Websites like Wikipedia. That is often a copyright violation. Copy-and-pasters frequently get their answers rated as "best answer", earning them 10 points, though an answerer who put some effort in real resarch don't get the reward they deserve.

Sorry didn't mean to call everyone stupid

Answer 1

Because we get stupid people like you asking questions !

Answer 2

You are right; credit is often given where it is not due.

I am terribly annoyed at people who, even if they give a great answer, have clearly copied and pasted their answers without citing their source. If they want to copy and paste, that's fine with me, but they had better cite their sources.

Another one that gets me are the long (and I mean seriously long, like an entire entry from Wikipedia) answers where the asker clearly states that they do not speak or read English very well. I just don't see how a copy-and-paste answer from someone's technical explanation of poetry and meter is going to be of any benefit to someone whose English skills are limited. Why not simply take the time to put down the answer in your own words, translated into simpler sentences and terms, and cite the original as your source?

I personally refuse to award best points or give thumbs-up ratings for those who simply copy and paste and claim it as their own work. Where I come from, that's called plagiarism, and even if it's not technically illegal, such as copyright infringement, it is still wrong.

For what it's worth, I rarely answer a question if don't know the answer offhand, from either my own store of knowledge, or my collection of references here at home, such as atlases or poetry books. I do, when necessary, check on small facts (for example, I answered a question the other day and noted the latitude of the areas in question). I do this because I figure if I know how to use a search engine, so does most everyone else, and if they don't already know about Wikipedia, they certainly will after just 5 minutes of browsing this site. And even when I use a source here at home, I always cite it, even if the citation is something as simple as "My Copy of 'A Tale of Two Cities'".

Sometimes a question makes me very curious, and I will actually take time to do some research, mainly to expand my own knowledge, and on those occasions, I also do make sure to cite my sources. I generally shy away from answering those types of questions, however, because sometimes the asker is just being plain lazy--it's easier to type your search terms into Google than it is to post a question here, and you usually get a larger variety of answers and more detailed information.

Thanks for the thought provoking question--nice to have a really good one at least once a day.

Answer 3

I understand exactly what you're saying here, I would prefer a thought out answer as opposed to a cut and paste, but the cut and pastes from wikipedia aren't technically a copyright violation as Yahoo has an exclusive link to it, which wouldn't be permitted without prior agreement and a licensing fee.
Cut and pastes which do not give credit to the source or author however ARE a copyright violation and quite frankly I am surprised that the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) haven't raised this issue here.

Answer 4

Not to necessarily disagree with your statement, but a couple of things to clear up:

Use of material from Wikipedia is not considered a copyright violation, so long as the Wikipedia rules are observed. Simply, Wiki content can be copied, modified and redistributed, so long as credit is given to the original author(s). Giving "credit" is as simple as including a link back to the original article. (as I've done below, citing the Wikipedia Copyrights article).

Second of all, I think you're missing an important point about Yahoo! Answers. When asking for information, many Yahoo! users are simply looking for reliable information - not someone who is willing to research the question from scratch.

Now, we can argue about the reliability and accuracy of an open-source 'encyclopedia' like Wikipedia, but the fact is, if I came on Yahoo! Answers looking for the definition of the word "accoutrement", I'd be perfectly happy if someone cut and pasted the definition from a reputable source like Webster's Dictionary. If we can accept Wikipedia as a trustworthy source, then a Wikipedia entry that answers a question is a perfectly legitimate way to provide the info that a questioner is looking for.

Answer 5

no
copying from wikipedia is not copyright violation, it's share free
On the other hand some questions are not in wikipedia.
And if they are at least somebody took the effort to search for it. Some articles are hard to find even on wikipedia.
I am interested that somebody to give me the information I need wherever might be. It's not competition here.

Answer 6

What in your opinion is "real research"? To search on the internet? People ask questions, and sites like Wikipedia provide the answers. The answer was researched. There are questions that people may have general knowledge of and there are those don't. To answer a question like, "Who was the first person to hit a homerun at the Skydome", may be as easy to answer looking it up at mlb.com as it is Wikipedia.

Based on some of the responses you have provided in your brief time here, I would suggest that you reconsider calling people 'stupid" for taking the time to either research an answer or those who double check to ensure that their answer is accurate. So, far, answers you have provided here have been ridiculous to say the least.

Answer 7

truthfully speaking, most of the people who ask questions, are asking things that they could just as easily look up themselves. Sometime i come across a "personal" advice type of question but , its VERY RARE. So, dont call it stupid if someone is rates BEST witha wikipedia answer. Just know that they did someone elses work for them because teh ASKER was too ________(fill in the blank)______ to do it themselves.

You may not want to go around calling people stupid either. Thats SO NOT cool!

Answer 8

Let me try to give you a thoughtful answer, not one that came from some website.

You're making an unfounded assumption that people are stupid just because they paste something from Wikipedia. I think this is simply the electronic version of old-fashioned research in a public library. I can remember going through books and copying information which was included in written reports. Of course, that was long before computers. But by using your logic, I was stupid because I copied information from reference texts.

As new techniques emerge, people adapt and change to match their environment. Yesterday's public libraries became today's internet. Today's internet will evolve into..... who knows? As long as people research and learn new things, I can't find fault with the means as long as it justifies the ends.

I'd rather see people copy-and-paste-and-learn something new than to wither away in some abyss of educational apathy. But that's just me.

Answer 9

Search the Web to research your answer.

Copy and paste, is not a copyright violation, as long as you do not past the whole thing, and reveal the source, or link to the source

The above is below every question. I wonder why many of the questions are asked.

Why,
Some fore fun.
Some for something to do
Others >>>>

Answer 10

My answer to that is people have too much time on their hands and are bored! They...ok ...we... sit at the 'puter for hours on end and think that people really care about what we type in here. It's actually comical to look at the *leaderboard* on this site and see the 10's of thousands of points those people have racked up! I can only hope to be up there with those *weiners* ----->oops I meant winners!

Answer 11

Its the way of the world, my friend. This is a website for the intelligent, and the stupid. Just try to enjoy it. Try answering different types of questions if you want best answer points.