Who else hates it when people copy stuff from Wikipedia to answer questions?

Question

I hate it when people do this. Whenever I get or see answers that are straight from Wikipedia, I know that they don't care about helping me or others out and hope that whatever they copied answers the question. I never give a Best Answer to a question from Wikipedia because there's no point in it. I would rather give a BA to someone who at least tried to sound like they knew the answer already because that shows they care to help me out.

Star if you agree!

I'm glad someone brought this up. I also hate these responses because usually, they're paragraphs long, making one want to skip reading it.

Answer 1

Yeah, it's definitely pathetic. And the hilarious part is that they think they'll definitely get 10 points...

Answer 2

because people ask some general questions here, and its not like they are not on the internet where there is unlimited info about that topic they could go to wikipedia themselves instead of asking a simple general question...for example if someone asked, who is michael jackson, i never heard of him...it makes sense if someone responded by copying wikipedia to give them a full biography... at least there is a source substantiating it...its better than other people that give answers straight out of their ***. Dont really care to give star--i dont agree with u

Answer 3

Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdi.ə/ WI-ki-PEE-dee-ə) is a free,[4] web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick") and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's 14 million articles (3.1 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.[5] It was launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger[6] and is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.[2][7][8][9] Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture ),[10] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted.[12] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information,[13] though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived,[14][15] and an investigation in Nature found that the material they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[16] Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of the encyclopedia building mode and the large presence of unacademic content have been noted several times. When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook.[17] Some noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear.[18][19]

Answer 4

I know. The answers are also so long I don't even take the time to read it. If I wanted the Wikipedia answer I would have looked it up myself. I think It's better when they give their own life experience.

Answer 5

Not sure what you mean
but
I hope this helps

As of August 14 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 7.9 million articles in 253 languages, 1.95 million of which are in the English edition.[1] It has been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world and the vast majority of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Steadily rising in popularity since its inception,[3] it currently ranks among the top ten most-visited websites worldwide.[4] Wikipedia's name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Its main servers are in Tampa, Florida, with additional servers located in Amsterdam and Seoul.

Due to Wikipedia's open nature, critics have questioned its reliability and accuracy.[5] The site has been criticized for its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of false or unverified information,[6] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies,[7] and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[8] Wikipedia's content policies[9] and sub-projects set up by contributors seeking to address these concerns.[10] Two scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived[11] and that Wikipedia is generally as accurate as other encyclopedias.[12]

Wikipedia, along with other interactive websites such as YouTube and Facebook, won the Time Person of the Year, awarded to the most influential of that year in 2006. The award praised the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world made possible through the World Wide Web.[13]

Answer 6

When an accurate and complete answer to a query is in the wiki, but the asker is unaware of it, providing the wiki answer (while editing for concision and relevance):

1. Answers the question
2. educates the questioner about the use of wikipedia.

Your prejudice against the wiki isn't objective.

Answer 7

No star I'm afraid - maybe they are just trying to help - be charitable! -

"A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma. Stars group together to form galaxies, and they dominate the visible universe. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun, which is the source of most of the energy on Earth, including daylight. Other stars are visible in the night sky, when they are not outshone by the Sun. A star shines because nuclear fusion in its core releases energy which traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were created inside the cores of stars.

Astronomers can determine the mass, age, chemical composition and many other properties of a star by observing its spectrum, luminosity and motion through space. The total mass of a star is the principal determinant in its evolution and eventual fate. Other characteristics of a star that are determined by its evolutionary history include the diameter, rotation, movement and temperature. A plot of the temperature of many stars against their luminosities, known as a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (H-R diagram), allows the current age and evolutionary state of a particular star to be determined.

A star begins as a collapsing cloud of material that is composed primarily of hydrogen along with some helium and heavier trace elements. Once the stellar core is sufficiently dense, some of the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective processes. These processes keep the star from collapsing upon itself and the energy generates a stellar wind at the surface and radiation into outer space.[1]

Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, a star of at least 0.4 times the mass of the Sun[2] expands to become a red giant, fusing heavier elements at the core, or in shells around the core. It then evolves into a degenerate form, recycling a portion of the matter into the interstellar environment where it will form a new generation of stars with a higher proportion of heavy elements.[3]

Binary and multi-star systems consist of two or more stars that are gravitationally bound, and generally move around each other in stable orbits. When two such stars have a relatively close orbit, their gravitational interaction can have a significant impact on their evolution.[4]"

See Wikipedia for more details.
Best wishes,
Joan ( a star in her own right).

Answer 8

I would say there cared because they took the time to go research so they wouldn't give you a wrong answer. Wikipedia is not as inaccurate as people seem to think. However, I do hate it when peope just give me the link to Wikipedia to find my answer, instead of just summarizing it themselves.

Answer 9

Then why did yahoo put a special box under our answers? For the source? If I answered you about quantum electricity without a source you would have to know that I was BS'in' you all the way. I would look them up in a source ......


WHOA! I would look up the answer and then I could just put it in my own words but would feel compelled to put down my source.

Answer 10

Actually I don't mind as long as it's helpful and relevant to the question. I just hate it when people shove loads of irrelevant crap in that has nothing to do with it. Or give the finger.

Answer 11

Yes becaause their answers aren't authentic, usually novel-length and Wikipedia is not even a reliable source !