2006-12-13 09:37:25 · 14 answers · asked by metroactus 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Neither, just let them fail their exams... Wikipedia is fun to use once you figure out how to edit each page... I remember I once changed the definition of "Placebo" to "A place named after Bo Jackson." Saying that the word "Placebo" was made up using the words "Place" and "Bo."
Bahahaha, my psychology class got a good laugh out of that...
I just read some of the other answers to your question, are these people for real??? They think Wikipedia is actually a reliable source of information??? ANYONE can change any definition on there... I guess I shouldn't be saying that on here... Because now a bunch of dimwits will be going and doing it, but oh well...
2006-12-13 09:53:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on what you consider to be "legitimate." Personally, I believe that some jackass' PhD Thesis is a useless source, and so are most of the sources listed in their Works Cited. Unless you're using a firsthand account (a "Primary Source," if you will...) as a reference, I think it's all pretty much just BS. Whereas, Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a conglomerate of the knowledge of many. But Wikipedia is usually more accurate than a normal encyclopedia due to the huge number of people that are constantly making it better.
I guess my point is that one person's opinion on a subject can be considered a "valid source," while Wikipedia, a consensus of many, cannot. I find it strange.
2006-12-13 17:53:32 · answer #2 · answered by tamesbadger 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
slap. A girl at my girlfriend's firm sent out a press release that said the average life expectancy now is 147 years. Got it from Wikipedia apparently.
2006-12-13 17:40:51 · answer #3 · answered by tridentoftime 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
People ask questions that can be answered by just going to wikipedia should be slapped or hung by their toes.
2006-12-13 17:40:54 · answer #4 · answered by chris B 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nowhere on Wikipedia does a life expectancy of 147 come up.
2006-12-13 17:47:04 · answer #5 · answered by unclskippy 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
its a good idea to double check anything you see on wikipedia for factual accuracy, but i dont think there's anything wrong with using wikipedia for casual everyday use.
it is an amazing resource and a clearinghouse for all kinds of useful information, all in one place
it has also been shown in many studies to be quite accurate. for instance, journalists have deliberatey sabatoged it in experimenets, and within minutes, their sabatoge work was corrected by wikipedia's many worker bees
2006-12-13 22:11:10 · answer #6 · answered by worldpeace 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is a viable source. You should be slapped AND hung by your toenails for proposing such!
2006-12-13 17:39:29 · answer #7 · answered by Lucan 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Neither.
Wikipedia *is* a valuable reference source.
Does it have errors? Of course.
So does the Encyclopedia Britannica. So what?
The vast majority of it is accurate, and it has more breadth than any printed encyclopedia.
All reference sources have errors -- that's why if you really want to know a subject, you use more than one reference source :)
2006-12-13 17:41:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
i just typed wikipedia into search, and went to wikipedia.com,,,,, as i had never used that site,,,, i really didnt see anything there, on the first page, to imply that it wasnt a legit resource, so maybe people simply dont know?
2006-12-13 17:45:14 · answer #9 · answered by dlin333 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both, unfortunately, many people think it is a legitimate reference source.
2006-12-13 17:39:01 · answer #10 · answered by newyorkgal71 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋