Ok...SERIOUSLY?

[PlagueOfLocust]

twesterm said:

alpha_dk said:

The problem with Wikipedia for many is not that it is more inaccurate than normal encyclopedias (hint: it's not statistically, and although i need to run now I will try to edit this with a source in like an hour (if i remember)). The problem with Wikipedia is that it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and they are not to be used in an academic setting.

 Wiki is in fact an encylopedia but the problem is that it isn't moderated (for the most part) so anyone can enter what they choose.  How do you know that person who entered the information isn't just wrong?  How do you know that it isn't just their opinion or take on a subject?  That's why professor's will tell you don't use a Wiki and I completely agree with them.  That being said, a Wiki can be a good place to *start* looking but only to point you in the right direction to other credible sources.   

 I agree with you on this one, twesterm. The problem teachers said they had with Wikipedia was that it could be edited by anyone, certainly not because it's an encyclopedia. I don't recall ever being told than an encyclopedia was a poor source (I may have been asked to limit the number of encyclopedias cited for a few assignments, though).

Still, Wikipedia has to have some sort of restrictions, because the information has always seemed to check out, and I don't know how the site could function if people were able to sabotage it with garbage (or accidentally, through stupidity), without any way of restricting or controlling that.