Universe Sandbox

General Category => Everything Else => Topic started by: blotz on March 28, 2013, 06:50:09 PM

Title: Wikipedia
Post by: blotz on March 28, 2013, 06:50:09 PM: tell why you think it is

a lot of teachers say "no wikipedia" and "anyone can change it"
but it is properly staffed, so isn't it like trustable??
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: ShadowScal3d on March 28, 2013, 07:09:45 PM: Ehhh. Wikipedia isn't exactly the most trustable source on the internet. But this is the internet we're talking about here XD
And if it is staffed then that would be good, because it would be more trustable, like you said
I need to be more relaxed in EE, don't I?
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: vh on March 28, 2013, 07:23:13 PM: it's on par with britannica in terms of accuracy apparently
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: FiahOwl on March 28, 2013, 07:52:58 PM: This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '102880'.
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: atomic7732 on March 28, 2013, 09:43:35 PM: Quote from: ShadowScal3d on March 28, 2013, 07:09:45 PM
And if it is staffed then that would be good, because it would be more trustable, like you said
it's not an anarchy no

It's kind of funny how serious they are about what goes on the articles...

And if you make a false edit someone will have noticed/reverted it within 5 minutes.
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: Bla on March 29, 2013, 02:39:49 AM: Some articles are trustable and some aren't, but if you want to find out whether they're trustable you'll usually need to check their sources.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source, but like Fiah said, the articles often have many sources you could use. I use it to get an overview of things, find sources and expand vocabulary on an area so it becomes easier to search for.
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: Hellpotatoe on March 29, 2013, 03:08:47 AM: Quote from: ShadowScal3d on March 28, 2013, 07:09:45 PM
I need to be more relaxed in EE, don't I?
Yis yu shuld cuse none here is sirius.

Only Bla, maybe Yqt and Naru, but they're exceptshuns
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: FiahOwl on March 29, 2013, 04:17:41 AM: This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '102898'.
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: Hellpotatoe on March 29, 2013, 08:22:25 AM: Quote from: FiahOwl on March 29, 2013, 04:17:41 AM
Hey, I'm serious 51% of the time. . .
Fiah doesnt count
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: matty406 on March 29, 2013, 09:12:52 AM: It is trustable, usually only the obscure articles have little credibility because they're mostly built from the writer's own knowlege. Not to say that the knowlege could be wrong, just that there's nothing to back it up with.

On that note, I present to you my favourite piece of obscure vandalism on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeble_(psychology)&oldid=519784625)
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: Darvince on March 29, 2013, 01:23:25 PM: brittanica on average has 2.6 errors per article
wikipedia on average has 3.5 errors per article

additionally, wikipedia's articles are usually longer
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: Bla on March 29, 2013, 02:36:32 PM: Quote from: Darvince on March 29, 2013, 01:23:25 PM
brittanica on average has 2.6 errors per article
wikipedia on average has 3.5 errors per article

additionally, wikipedia's articles are usually longer
[Citation needed]?
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: Darvince on March 29, 2013, 03:52:09 PM: sorry bla it was an article about factuality of encyclopedias and i don't have the exact URL at this moment because it was about two months ago i am so terribly sorry

EDIT: GRR!!!
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: atomic7732 on March 29, 2013, 04:36:10 PM: I think it was a joke partially
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: vh on March 31, 2013, 11:16:06 AM: ^[citation needed]
Title: Re: Wikipedia
Post by: atomic7732 on March 31, 2013, 11:30:55 AM: ^{[citation needed]}