Has it supplanted thoughtful introspection? Are there other sources for factual reference? Am I spending too much time reading answers that are cut-and-pasted exactly the same? Are my expectations too high for wanting to read unique responses from those participating in these forums?
2006-07-26 18:18:29 · 4 answers · asked by silas h 3 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Wikipedia is great for cut and dry facts. Questions of debate and human interaction ("Why should I believe your religion?", "Does that girl in my gym class like me?) are probably better answered here.
I think wiki would eliminate the need for a lot of questions here, but far from all of them.
I think it would reduce some of the redundant and less intelligent questions asked here; unless of course they're LOOKING for a second (or third...or fourth...) opinion.
2006-07-28 01:15:35 · answer #1 · answered by jermaine 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. It's no different from the bookbound encyclopedias except that it's interactive. Now if you want spontaneous answers to your questions then just indicate it.
I love Wikipedia. Peace.
2006-07-27 01:30:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i LOVE wikipedia
its the smartest website i know of, and i havent found any false info on their so far. not to mention they have EVERYTHING
2006-07-27 01:22:21 · answer #3 · answered by MRose 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never used it.
2006-07-27 01:24:01 · answer #4 · answered by Stranger in a Strangeland 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋