Yes. You cite pro-Christian and pro-American sources and you are spared a Block. Try other sources and you are blocked. Thank you. Good that you cannot Block anyone here.

I think that was a compliment to TPU.

Welcome rsajan. And yes you do have a point, that content can be "hijacked" for whatever purpose by whoever. And the neutrality thing can be difficult to implement, esp. when there are people with some "superior power", whatever that may mean, and however relative that is, that can influence what information is recorded, or reviewed, or made permanent. (or deleted).

Politics and history have throughout history been influenced by a few to represent an image (-ination) they prefer.

anything writen by HUMANS is going to be slanted to the views the writer holds, sorry but its FACT, human nature means that your view of events/subjects is skewed by your own perspective, that is created by your life experiences.

Personaly i cant find fault with much of what i have read in wikipedia, their artical on chiropractic is bias, but thats NORMAL, read it in other encylopedias, the AMA(American medical association) has a real problem with anything that dosnt requier drugs and making them money, just recently have medical doctors started to come around to the fact that there are other ways to deal with problems then covering them up with drugs.

medical doctors dont really try and cure anything, its not profitable to cure you, its profitable to treat you as long as possable!!!

blah I get into a rant about that crap and get upset and well most of u know what I mean.

I have no problem with the salerys of those who are employed by Wiki, I do have a problem with excessive spending, but depending on the use 1k a day expence accts for say a system admin or the like, if on a trip or buying software/equipment thats not really that excessive, i had a manager that went on a training trip to NY and he had a hard time keeping his expences under 800 a day due to taxi costs (subway/public trans is scare to ppl who havent used it b4, also can get lost to easy :P )

I agree if its all the time, that is excessive, but duno if it was a daily thing or if the expence's included stuff for work and not just stuff like lunch at an over priced restrant.

Oh and I agree if you want to hold onto good people, you gotta pay well, Google dosnt just pay well, they also feed their employees and their familys and even guests/friends of employees at a high end buffet, crazy stuff, they wana keep the employee happy, a happy employee is a more efficent employee :)

Wikipedia pwns. But they post some imapproriate stuff like if u search penis on wikipedia, it'll show u an actual picture of a real penis. :(

spearman914, Americans are far to prudish, who cares if you see a penis?

I am American, and Honestly I cant understand why people are so caught up on "omg i saw a nipple" or the like.

oh and FYI real paper encylopedias have far worse things for a prude to see then a pic of a penius!!!!

Why was "penis" looked up in the first place?!

so somebody could have an excuse to say that wiki was bad/evil/imoral?

Wikipedia "It's true because enough people say it's true"


A social experiment of education, information, and some favortisim. And by god they need the money as they say they do, and besides, I saw it on wikipedia, and linked it. Are you too stupid to read and understand it? Everyone needs to drive a 100K car and work 40 hour weeks, that is how this country works, by damned, and that is how it will stay, built upon the backs of others.

Oh, and has anyone seen the wikifuck tool? Quite amazing, almost like madlibs for wikipedia.

there have been studys showing that wikipedia is as accurate as your retail "costs an arm and a legg" hard copy(book or dvd) encylopedias, no signifigant diffrance was found(both had innacuracys)

fact is that facts are changing constantly, at least with wikipedia when they change pluto's class from a planet to whatever it gets updated quickly to match the new "facts"/"reality"

Rebo&Zootythere have been studys showing that wikipedia is as accurate as your retail "costs an arm and a legg" hard copy(book or dvd) encylopedias, no signifigant diffrance was found(both had innacuracys)

fact is that facts are changing constantly, at least with wikipedia when they change pluto's class from a planet to whatever it gets updated quickly to match the new "facts"/"reality"

See my first coment.


Oh so contraire Mr. Colbert :p

haha, yeah, just came off as you saying wiki was crap, hell my last college prof even said he would allow wiki as a backup/alt reference BUT if the artical you linked didnt fit with his sorces you would probably fail the class.......funny I got a B after missing to many days to pass the class because I did such a good job, and all my stuff was backed with stuff from wiki(but not only from wiki ofcorse) but then again, i know what google and stuff like liberys are for :P

I donated $1 a few months ago :) Which would have been around 60 US cents.

btarunrWhat started off on a low-key as a free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia now stands as an indispensable part of the internet, as one of the most important information resources.

I think Wiki's got a pretty big idea of themselves. I'd hardly call it indispensible. I'd rather just spend an extra 30 seconds and use credible resources I don't have to double/triple check.

Don, do some research, they are credible, as credible as any retail encylopedia is anyway, ANY sorce you use needs dbl and even triple checked, you know why? because its all writen by PEOPLE.

also, how do you know what sorce say "world book" has its artical writers/updaters use?

at least on wiki citations are requiered for an artical to survive, hell even in shit like a wwf wrestlers wiki profile(ROFL?) they put "citation needed" when they want "proof" that somethings true.......

Wiki Is Paid Employment?

I do not understand it. People research and find data which they write into the pages. These people do not get paid.
Why should Wiki then have this many employees receiving such huge salaries?
The stuff in Wiki being supplied by researchers and writers that are not paid, this staff strength and their emoluments seem fishy.

If I need facts on a subject, Wiki is the last place I would look. Editable by anyone on the net just isn't credible.

I could link to a a scan about how blood letting is good for everything but hemachromatosis and it could stand as true if no one else catches it.



I prefer to use Wiki for things that ahve references, and then check the references for current changes. When my daughter was in the hospital the research I did on the urea cycle, argenine and nitric oxide all STARTED at wiki, but lead me to information from multiple universities about the use of argenine and citruliene as a birth shot at a cost of $5 vs the $217,000 two week hospital stay for her.

Wiki has its place, but not at the information/education forefront of mankind.

erockerIf I need facts on a subject, Wiki is the last place I would look. Editable by anyone on the net just isn't credible.

odd crediable sorces have shown other wise, shown wiki being as reliable as

tech.savvyteachers.com/2007/10/08/wikipedia-is-it-credible-and-can-we-use-it/

Wikipedia is a great source of all sorts of information. I often go there myself to get a basic understanding of a topic. But wikipedia has been attacked as non-credible and containing false information. We’re going to explore if these claims are true or false and decide what to do with wikipedia. First, we need to understand how wikipedia works. The word “wikipedia” is a mashing of two words. “wiki” is a Hawaiian word for quick, and the end of wikipedia is taken from encyclopedia. A wiki on the Internet is a site that allows anyone to edit the information on the page. Anyone can change a wikipedia article by clicking the edit tab and making changes.
Problems?
At first glance that might seem like a huge problem. If anyone can change the content, how do I know if its accurate? Wikipedia is based on the concept of peer collaboration. The basic idea is that so many people use wikipedia that any errors or negative changes will be fixed by another user. A common quote is that “given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.” In wikipedia’s case, the bugs would be false information that’s been edited into the page.
Studies
In fact studies by the BBC and Nature Magazine have shown that wikipedia has the same reliability as traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Others believe that the main issue with wikipedia is trusting in it blindly. Wikipedia can have errors and it’s important to check the information. Perhaps an important lesson we can learn is that all sources (since they were created by people) can have errors and should be evaluated. Wikipedia can (and does) conatain errors, but so does the Encyclopedia Brittainica and many other sources. Evaluate every source by checking the information with other sources. If one says something totally different, then you know that they’re may be an issue.
A Reasonable Conclusion
So where does that leave us? Basically my policy (and I believe many other teacher’s) is that wikipedia is a great source to get basic information, but don’t use it as a cited source. Middlebury College in Vermont recently took this position. If you read that article, you’ll find a very sensible solution. Wikipedia’s greatest value in research paper’s is the citations they used in the article. Every article should have citations to source-worthy sites. The Wikipedia article on Wikipedia has over 100 references, may of which would be perfect as a source. Read the wikipedia article, then check their sources and see if they’d be a fit for your paper.
In short: Use the references from wikipedia, cite them, but don’t cite wikipedia itself.

the links to the studies i didnt copy you can go over to the sorce link and click them, fact is that wiki is as reliable as any other single sources.
athena.libraries.claremont.edu/~blog/blog/archives/2005/12/15/wikipedia_-_a_credible_source.html
another artical about this, im to lazy to find more, but there have been a good number of studies that show wiki is as trustworthy as any other ONE sources, you should ALWAYS have at least 3 sources.

many times when doing research for an a paper i get a minimum of 5 many times 8-10 sorces and cite and use the best of them :)

The things i'd miss if wikipedia was to go away
1: Episode guides for scrubs
2: The lists of cpu's and gpu's
3: The chemistry articles
4: The breasts article