Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.


If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.

Now THAT I can deal with...I misunderstood what you were saying. In other words, you're saying that you're not using the TEXT of Wikipedia, but rather just the places it's referring to, which are legitimate reference points. I have no problem with the use of Wikipedia to that point, and I already encourage my students to do so. But Wikipedia should NOT be used as a reference point itself.

Anybody that cites Wikipedia in a formal environment is a fool. Wikipedia is like spark-notes for everything. Get a nice quick summary of information to get you started, and then go elsewhere from there. When I argue with my friends about something, Wikipedia is often the deciding factor in who wins or loses. When reading something I don't quite understand, Wikipedia is there to explain it to me. When I need to know specific pieces of syntax for a line of code, well, then I use other, more reliable sources that have that information. If I'm doing a project, Wikipedia will get me started, summarizing my subject and providing me with sources, but nothing more.

hecter wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.


If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.

Now THAT I can deal with...I misunderstood what you were saying. In other words, you're saying that you're not using the TEXT of Wikipedia, but rather just the places it's referring to, which are legitimate reference points. I have no problem with the use of Wikipedia to that point, and I already encourage my students to do so. But Wikipedia should NOT be used as a reference point itself.

Anybody that cites Wikipedia in a formal environment is a fool. Wikipedia is like spark-notes for everything. Get a nice quick summary of information to get you started, and then go elsewhere from there. When I argue with my friends about something, Wikipedia is often the deciding factor in who wins or loses. When reading something I don't quite understand, Wikipedia is there to explain it to me. When I need to know specific pieces of syntax for a line of code, well, then I use other, more reliable sources that have that information. If I'm doing a project, Wikipedia will get me started, summarizing my subject and providing me with sources, but nothing more.

well said

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.


If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.

Now THAT I can deal with...I misunderstood what you were saying. In other words, you're saying that you're not using the TEXT of Wikipedia, but rather just the places it's referring to, which are legitimate reference points. I have no problem with the use of Wikipedia to that point, and I already encourage my students to do so. But Wikipedia should NOT be used as a reference point itself.

So you start off by saying that WIkipedia sucks and now you admit that you encourage your students to use it?

Which is it guy?

Does it suck or is it useful enough to the point to where you would recommend it's usage to your students?

demonfork wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.


If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.

Now THAT I can deal with...I misunderstood what you were saying. In other words, you're saying that you're not using the TEXT of Wikipedia, but rather just the places it's referring to, which are legitimate reference points. I have no problem with the use of Wikipedia to that point, and I already encourage my students to do so. But Wikipedia should NOT be used as a reference point itself.

So you start off by saying that WIkipedia sucks and now you admit that you encourage your students to use it?
Which is it guy?
Does it suck or is it useful enough to the point to where you would recommend it's usage to your students?

I'm sorry you're so illiterate that you're unable to follow basic English. Perhaps if you managed to follow a conversation without the desire to put someone down you might actually find that you understand what's going on around you.

Wikipedia was invented at McGill University in 1896.

Wikipedia is extremely well-moderated. I don't know why anyone has a problem with it. It is usually obvious when there is an edit. The sources are listed at the bottom. It helps give an accurate description of any topic. Sorry if you don't like it. Welcome to the Information Age.

john9blue wrote:Wikipedia is extremely well-moderated. I don't know why anyone has a problem with it. It is usually obvious when there is an edit. The sources are listed at the bottom. It helps give an accurate description of any topic. Sorry if you don't like it. Welcome to the Information Age.

Here ya go: In coltons thread http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=102716, I used wikipedia. This is what I got.

The racial makeup of the Tacoma suburb of Parkland is 73.91% White, 8.07% African American, 1.04% Native American, 6.64% Asian, 1.81% Pacific Islander, 2.06% from other races, and 6.47% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 5.33% of the population.
According to http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Parkland,_Washington#encyclopedia

(which uses wikipedia which cites http://factfinder.census.gov/, but the numbers are about +/-2%, some are 10% off, and some are 95% off...) NOT BAD, wikipedia!

It doesn't matter that it cites things, because anyone can cite things incorrectly... There's nothing to really moderate that because that would be too time-consuming. Wikipedia is inaccurate and just an offshoot, a small branch, of the Information Age, which provides much more valuable and useful information. Wikipedia should only be taken as word of mouth and never be considered complete fact.

I use wikipedia all the time, but I always keep in mind that wikipedia is very limited in what it provides factually. Just keep that in mind. For many small things like short summaries on something like movies, it's fine; however, if you want a summary on Mao Zedong or George Washington, you're likely to run into a lot of crap, or something entirely one-sided. The moderators there don't go over everything and they themselves are not really credible.

I agree that statistics should be checked from multiple sources. Usually Wikipedia provides those. Compared to many other Internet sources, it is extremely reliable and non-biased.

john9blue wrote:I agree that statistics should be checked from multiple sources. Usually Wikipedia provides those. Compared to many other Internet sources, it is extremely reliable and non-biased.

"compared to many..." You're right, but you're ignoring the fact that most of the internet is full of rubbish which doesn't mean much for wikipedia. Now comparing wikipedia to legitimate sources of information, well wikipedia is just rubbish because it can be easily manipulated by people who really have little authority and/or are interested in being factually correct and honest.

john9blue wrote:I agree that statistics should be checked from multiple sources. Usually Wikipedia provides those. Compared to many other Internet sources, it is extremely reliable and non-biased.

non-biased. Right, it's just as biased as any other source of information because it is really hard not to make something biased in some way

Snorri1234 wrote:Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

Nope, thats what I (and I think (hope) a lot of others) do

Wikipedia is a extremely powerful tool of information.
I could spend the whole day reading article after article, and it's very good to learn things. I remember been reading about the Boers wars,, the fallacy theory, Agnosticism and the entire history of the inner circle in the beginnings s of the Black metal.

It was really entertaining, and informative, and the ones who criticized such a thing are obviously reactionaries who are always against everything, and disagree just because it's their way to feel comfortable themselves.

The perfect example of such a biased and lame behavior is woodruff, that is always contradicting himself, and he is always against everything.

Falkomagno wrote:Wikipedia is a extremely powerful tool of information.
I could spend the whole day reading article after article, and it's very good to learn things. I remember been reading about the Boers wars,, the fallacy theory, Agnosticism and the entire history of the inner circle in the beginnings s of the Black metal.

It was really entertaining, and informative, and the ones who criticized such a thing are obviously reactionaries who are always against everything, and disagree just because it's their way to feel comfortable themselves.

The perfect example of such a biased and lame behavior is woodruff, that is always contradicting himself, and he is always against everything.

Yea, it's easy as heck. I remember learning everything I know about the Crimean War off of it.


And sometimes when people "incorrectly" edit it, it can be hilarious. Like this one time I looked up Virginia and it said something like "Virginians are all f****** a******* who eat their own s***".

Falkomagno wrote:Wikipedia is a extremely powerful tool of information.
I could spend the whole day reading article after article, and it's very good to learn things. I remember been reading about the Boers wars,, the fallacy theory, Agnosticism and the entire history of the inner circle in the beginnings s of the Black metal.

It was really entertaining, and informative, and the ones who criticized such a thing are obviously reactionaries who are always against everything, and disagree just because it's their way to feel comfortable themselves.

The perfect example of such a biased and lame behavior is woodruff, that is always contradicting himself, and he is always against everything.

I'm always contradicting myself, and I'm always against everything? Great, then you can provide a wealth of examples showing these two statements, right? Or will this be like the other times I've called you on your personal crusade against me, Falkomagno, where you run and hide?

I have no idea what I've done to set you off against me, but it really does get old.

Woodruff wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:Wikipedia is a extremely powerful tool of information.
I could spend the whole day reading article after article, and it's very good to learn things. I remember been reading about the Boers wars,, the fallacy theory, Agnosticism and the entire history of the inner circle in the beginnings s of the Black metal.

It was really entertaining, and informative, and the ones who criticized such a thing are obviously reactionaries who are always against everything, and disagree just because it's their way to feel comfortable themselves.

The perfect example of such a biased and lame behavior is woodruff, that is always contradicting himself, and he is always against everything.

I'm always contradicting myself, and I'm always against everything? Great, then you can provide a wealth of examples showing these two statements, right? Or will this be like the other times I've called you on your personal crusade against me, Falkomagno, where you run and hide?

I have no idea what I've done to set you off against me, but it really does get old.

A clear example of your contradiction is, just to say anything, your presence in the forum., when you said that you will quit, but, there you go.

I don't understand why do you said that I’m in a crusade. I don't have anything personal against you. It’s only that, in my opinion, your point of view stinks 99% of the time (your point of view about Klobber it's ok). You are the kind of people who is against start any new project, any advance, any new idea. You are a retrograde reactionary, and my personality has a great problem with that kind of ideas, because I’m the opposite. Beside your lack of wit, for someone so regular in the forum, it's almost a pain in my eyes when I read around here. You are just so fucking boring.

I just cannot foe people, it's against my principles, that's why I read some of your post.

But jeez, what kind of person can say that wikipedia sucks?

here's a somewhat truthful and funny video about wikipedia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY
warning mature themes in case you're not of age or something like that

Falkomagno wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:Wikipedia is a extremely powerful tool of information.
I could spend the whole day reading article after article, and it's very good to learn things. I remember been reading about the Boers wars,, the fallacy theory, Agnosticism and the entire history of the inner circle in the beginnings s of the Black metal.

It was really entertaining, and informative, and the ones who criticized such a thing are obviously reactionaries who are always against everything, and disagree just because it's their way to feel comfortable themselves.

The perfect example of such a biased and lame behavior is woodruff, that is always contradicting himself, and he is always against everything.

I'm always contradicting myself, and I'm always against everything? Great, then you can provide a wealth of examples showing these two statements, right? Or will this be like the other times I've called you on your personal crusade against me, Falkomagno, where you run and hide?

I have no idea what I've done to set you off against me, but it really does get old.

A clear example of your contradiction is, just to say anything, your presence in the forum., when you said that you will quit, but, there you go.

I don't understand why do you said that I’m in a crusade. I don't have anything personal against you. It’s only that, in my opinion, your point of view stinks 99% of the time (your point of view about Klobber it's ok). You are the kind of people who is against start any new project, any advance, any new idea. You are a retrograde reactionary, and my personality has a great problem with that kind of ideas, because I’m the opposite. Beside your lack of wit, for someone so regular in the forum, it's almost a pain in my eyes when I read around here. You are just so fucking boring.

I can buy that I might appear boring to some...no sweat. I can buy that you might view me as lacking wit (though that surprises me, to be honest).

I have NO IDEA how you came to the conclusion that I am against "any new project, any advance, any new idea"...that just doesn't even make sense to me, honestly, as it goes directly against a great number of my posts in these fora.

I truly don't understand how you have come to view me as a retrograde reactionary.

These last two points are why I do believe you have something personal against me, because I don't know how that conclusion could be reached without it.