I just see so many people quote it as their source.
2007-12-13 08:12:28 · 31 answers · asked by plastik punk -Bottom Contributor 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Skalite that may be the best explanation I have ever heard.
2007-12-13 08:22:36 · update #1
Nice one Sid B. I like it.
2007-12-13 08:30:58 · update #2
You must be new hear if you're expecting logic and reasoned debate.
We're more the "Strap on your helmets and galoshes, this is going to get messy" kind of debate.
2007-12-13 08:15:59 · answer #1 · answered by Skalite 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Its a lack of better sources. People believe what they believe whether there is proof or not for it. From their they type in what they are looking for into a search engine and the minute they see youtube or wikipedia pop up they immediately jump on it as great proof. Wikipedia can be a good source for information on unimportant things. But once you get into the heavy topics it is almost certainly going to fling back and forth between each side with no real proof for either side because people just jump on there and edit up a storm putting in what they feel are the facts.
2007-12-13 08:26:58 · answer #2 · answered by Lorena 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia relies upon on the priority, issues like in call for persons in historic previous, evolution and technological understanding in many cases could have very precise assistance on it. On issues that aren't getting appeared at lots I prefer web content touching directly to the definitely concern because of the fact those get corrected much less. individually i don't study what's on the website because of the fact the hyperlinks supplied are in many cases a a hundred cases extra advantageous and prefer has been stated, often to learn papers of universities and all that jazz that's the gold which will talk. On youtube I have confidence human beings, not the internet internet site. There are some human beings i be attentive to will supply fairly good assistance touching directly to all styles of issues, back particularly speaking approximately technological understanding, rofl :). i admire technological understanding so yea...
2016-11-03 04:07:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They aren't. But they are a collection of everything. So if you want a general summary of a subject, go to wikipedia. It has a general summary that isn't considered accurate. Then you can at least read about the subject, before researching it for the facts behind it. Youtube is used a way to find someone who has already said it better then you can. Again, it isn't used as factual.
For example, if I was trying to educated someone on the definition of a scientific theory, I could point them to the wiki article, or a youtube video for an explanation of my point. If they choose, they can take what that says, and go to college websites to further support or to falsify my claim.
2007-12-13 08:21:44 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is not a "source". It's an encyclopaedia which summarises a topic and then provides numerous links to sources.
Some of the articles are very good and very comprehensive with excellent links, some of them aren't. Some of them carry the biases of their authors. You need to be able to read critically and intelligently.
Despite its limitations, it's often a very good introduction to a topic, especially in areas that have been well studied and interest lots of people, such as in science.
Don't know about youtube. I'm still on dial up.
2007-12-13 08:21:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wikipedia has two types of articles those which have been verified and those which have been contributed but not verified. Since anyone can contribute the latter it is not a reliable source. I Have an extensive reference library I consult first. Using youtube as a reference is just out to lunch. You may as well ask your dog. So far mine has told me life is "Ruff" and trees are covered in "Bark"
2007-12-13 08:26:55 · answer #6 · answered by Sid B 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. I prefer universities or reliable sources. I would never go to Wikipedia for anything but well known facts. Youtube is good for certain TV programs or just wacko stuff.
2007-12-13 08:17:18 · answer #7 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wiki is a good place to get started for basic information. I don't know as though most people would consider either of those cold hard sources.
2007-12-13 08:18:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not factual necessarily all the time, but a source nonetheless. If you use it to support something you already "know," it can be a good quick reference (wikipedia, that is).
2007-12-13 08:16:51 · answer #9 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can find amazing stuff there that is both funny and also can learn about other faiths. When you see a picture it can replace many words and can give a good idea or what is going on. There is some very clever videos there and give a good idea what is going on in some religions and those who have something to hide will not aprove of them.
No use to hide the truth but we need to let people see what happens in these cults.
here is one on religious underwear
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KsXzHLiHTOU&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPyvJacwUI
here is one from benny hinns preaching wife
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=k0FMZiEmM14
Also you will find great debates between various churches and religions and these are all that have happened. Only those who are scared of the truth will try to hide it. Christians need to live as Christians so why be scared to get caught if your a Christian
2007-12-13 08:26:22 · answer #10 · answered by Wally 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Youtube...no...
But unless someone points out that something on wiki is wrong, I don't see a problem with it.
For all the things I've used it to reference, they seem to be reliable. I just wish Wikipedia had moderators or something so not anyone could just post.
2007-12-13 08:30:31 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋