Why do people simply copy material from wikipedia when answering history questions?

Question

Everyone knows how to use wiki, if they wanted to find an answer there they could search for it themselves.

What I like to see is your OWN answer. If you dont know the answer then dont bother trying to answer the question. Copying material from wikipedia is hardly a great feat.

Maybe people should not get points if they simply copy stuff from wikipedia.

What do you think?

Wikipedia is not a good source. Its often written by people who dont provide references.If you are going to answer a question then either answer using your own specialist knowledge or find a credible source.

The way things are going Yahoo answers is just becoming an advertisement for wikipedia

Answer 1

I think people are too lazy to research stuff themselves so they ask on here. It's easier to let someone else do all the leg work.

Answer 2

I think copying great chunks out of Wiki is a cop out. What annoys me most are the people who copy and paste vast parts of articles and then pass it off as their own thoughts. By all means copy from Wiki, but at least have the courtesy to say that you have done so and give credit. Otherwise, what you are doing is, in fact, just plagiarism. Much better, however, is merely to give the answerer a link to the Wiki entries. I agree people should not get points for copying - the trouble is, who is going to police all the answers and check back on those that look like copies.

Answer 3

Terrible isn't it. I agree that a person who asks a sensible question should get the facts from people who know them.
I can't see how you can ban it as other sources could be more helpful.
If only the wiki link was in the source box that would be acceptable

When I am picking best answers I never pick them, I pick an answer that is close to being correct or pick no best answer

Answer 4

Some people are just too lazy to go to Wikipedia themselves, and want a quick answer. Why go to Wiki when people will do it for you? And sure, YOU might want to see our own answers (very nice by the way), but personally when I ask on YA, I don't mind where the source is from.

Wikipedia is a decent source. Yes it is open to anyone to edit, but it is great for GENERAL information. For detailed sources, please read books.

Answer 5

i fairly wanted to adhere the Wikipedia get admission to for "Wikipedia" as my answer, besides the indisputable fact that it develop into so long that it would want to be extra stressful than humorous. As for the question, I hate it for some causes. First, Wikipedia isn't continuously an authoritative source, and that i'm hesitant to take what I examine there as shown reality. i might want to really have it subsidized up through yet another source. Secondly, human beings do not reference the source, appearing like that is something they merely got here up with. once you're going to replica and paste, a minimum of admit the position you stole the fabric!

Answer 6

History
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see History (disambiguation).
History studies the past in human terms. For the science of locating events in time, unrelated to humans, see chronology.
History
Africa
Americas
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Eurasia
Europe
Latin America
Middle East
North America
South America

History Portal
History is the study of past human events and activities. Although this broad discipline has often been classified under either the humanities or the social sciences, it can be seen to be a bridge between them, incorporating methodologies from both fields of study. As a field of study, history encompasses many subfields and ancillary fields, including chronology, historiography, genealogy, paleography, and cliometrics. Traditionally, historians have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents, although historical research is not limited merely to these sources. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. Historians frequently emphasize the importance of written records, which universally date to the development of writing. This emphasis has led to the term prehistory, referring to a time before written sources are available. Since writing emerged at different times throughout the world, the distinction between prehistory and history often depends on the topic.

Answer 7

If you want detailed facts...it is best to copy from a known source.

If you want someones opinion...then ask for it. Otherwise, I think you want facts.

And some people do not know how to search for things on their own or for other reasons want someone to do it for them.

And I learn a lot myself from searching for answers for other people.

Isn't that what we are here to do...answer.

I'm. also old enough and wise enough to know not to give anyone information that could harm them in any way.

This is suppose to be a fun place to spend time learning and helping others learn...why do some people think they have the right to say how the answers are gotten?

Answer 8

i think the reason they do it is because they want to avoid education at all costs. Also they SHOULD NOT get points.
maybe you should give the points to wikipedia themselves. (im sure they deserve it)

Answer 9

I agree with you.
When I have gotten information I have always cited it; otherwise it's my opinion.
I guess some must cheat to "win".