yeah so if someone answer has wikipedia do not give them best answer you can write or add what ever you want into that
2006-10-27 15:04:25 · 8 answers · asked by giantsfans00011 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Other - Education
I agree with you on that. But sadly some people just copy and paste answers from wikipedia and don't realize that it not all correct what is written in wikipedia.
2006-10-27 15:14:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is a good place to start your research. It can often prove general information and a good overview of a topic as well as help point you to other resources. It should never be the only source someone uses. I have sited it a few times in answers because it sometime spells things out in a clearer fashion then other web-pages. Just because someone includes a link to a wikipedia page does not mean that they are providing bad answers. If it is the only resource they site you should check there facts before make a decision.
2006-10-27 22:22:03 · answer #2 · answered by John G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, you cannot add anything you want into Wikipedia. I just looked at the rules last night. They say most submisissions are rejected, and explain why.
They have editors, and all submissions have to supply existing sources so they can be verified. They also very specifically discourage original research.
I wanted to submit an article on the little mountain village where I spend most of my time. But they will only accept stuff based on previously published material, so my presence and my knowledge of the community is not acceptable. I can't even list the highway for tourists to use to get here unless I can find a source; copying the road signs is original research...
I must admit I was disappointed. It essentially is copying other works.
By the way, your question is totally incoherent. Bet you never get anything accepted.
2006-10-27 22:17:03 · answer #3 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1] What's your question?
2] Wikipedia has tightened up on who can edit what, and lots of pages are simply locked these days because there are a lot of idiots out there.
3] There are certainly plenty of other resources; you are not restricted to Wiki, even on the net, but there's no reason not to use it as one source.
4] As a jr/sr high school teacher, I can testify that Wiki has tons of absolutely first-rate material.
5] You got a problem with that? Somebody twisting your arm? Why don't you put some energy into solving a real problem?
2006-10-28 07:20:46 · answer #4 · answered by peter_lobell 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually wikipedia is amazingly reliable. Of course there is vandalism on pages and false unverified information that temporarily gets placed on wikipedia, but unreliable information is corrected very fast because of the recent changes page.
RECENT CHANGES PAGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
NEW PAGES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages
All changes/new pages are sent to these links where wikipedia fanatics and administrators are reviewing the information for reliability/ sources.
I am an administrator at wikipedia and we block people (IP address) who vandalise/ post false information repeatedly.
2006-10-27 22:33:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia has actually been found to be almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and more up to date according to a study by the journal Nature.
2006-10-27 22:26:02 · answer #6 · answered by Serendipity 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So is Y!A.
I actually READ the Wikipedia articles before I cite them.
If I contributed to the article, I mention that so the reader will know that I may be the same source twice and that I stand by it.
I've seen errors in "definitive" reference books.
2006-10-27 22:19:23 · answer #7 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What yo question inspector? I'm gona go to wiki and add dumbdumb to it.
2006-10-27 22:13:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋