|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:10 pm
I.Am Uncyclopedia is -highly- hilarious. I trust Wikipedia because, yes, there are people who will vandalize, but on articles that are most likely to be vandalized, they limit the editing to only people who have accounts, and you have to have had an account for a certain amount of time. That way, they can just ban your account and IP address if you vandalize. And even the ones that are less noticable, so many people go on there that, even if someone vandalizes an article, it's usually reverted to a previous state in just a few minutes, if not seconds. I don't mind you not trusting it, but I do trust it because of that. wink Lol... the only reason I don't trust it is because the only thing I need to look up are things that have to do with life or death, I'd prefer to know who wrote the book, what his degree is, and how well and accurate the book is. For everything else though, like Anime, or politics, Wikipedia is fairly reliable. In either case, Uncyclopedia to me is a more valuble source of information. xd
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:10 pm
FreeArsenal WatersMoon110 You know what sounds dirty, but isn't? "You make me secrete atrial natriuretic factor." Atrial natriuretic factor is a powerful peptide hormone secreted by your heart that affects the blood vessels, the adrenal glands, the kidneys, and the regulatory regions of the brain in order to regulate blood pressure and volume (according to Wikipedia, at least). Wikipedia huh... lol it's interesting to read their articles, but since it's a site that lets people write articles and "contribute" I don't trust the source. I prefer to use actual medical books, and well... I have never come across "atrial natriuretic factor" before in my life. Also, I prefer, www.uncyclopedia.org Doesn't Uncyclopedia uses Wikipedia's software? Most Wikis do. Wikipedia is pretty good for general things and common knowledge. And they really are great about catching errors and fixing them, for the most part. They also moderate changes pretty well, and will lock down any page that is vandalized. But there are a lot of topics on Wikipedia where you have to check out the sources (if there are any). I was just looking for something in the heart, and Googled "heart". I can't vouch for the information, though it did meet my "sounds dirty but isn't" requirement. eek Wow - that was long and not really on topic (not that most anything else in here lately has been).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:14 pm
WatersMoon110 Doesn't Uncyclopedia uses Wikipedia's software? Most Wikis do. Read their articles.. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:16 pm
FreeArsenal I.Am Uncyclopedia is -highly- hilarious. I trust Wikipedia because, yes, there are people who will vandalize, but on articles that are most likely to be vandalized, they limit the editing to only people who have accounts, and you have to have had an account for a certain amount of time. That way, they can just ban your account and IP address if you vandalize. And even the ones that are less noticable, so many people go on there that, even if someone vandalizes an article, it's usually reverted to a previous state in just a few minutes, if not seconds. I don't mind you not trusting it, but I do trust it because of that. wink Lol... the only reason I don't trust it is because the only thing I need to look up are things that have to do with life or death, I'd prefer to know who wrote the book, what his degree is, and how well and accurate the book is. For everything else though, like Anime, or politics, Wikipedia is fairly reliable. In either case, Uncyclopedia to me is a more valuble source of information. xd Well duh, of course, if you're in school, or as part of your profession, I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to be your only source of information. xd I wouldn't want a doctor who learned everything he knows on Wikipedia to operate on me (Although, if it got him through medical school with passing grades...). But that's different, I wouldn't expect someone to use it for that. For anything I need, wikipedia works fine, because I use it to look up just about anything. I mean, if I don't know what someone's talking about, Wikipedia's on my quickbar and I look there first. But it's hardly like someone's going to die if I'm misinformed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:25 pm
I.Am Well duh, of course, if you're in school, or as part of your profession, I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to be your only source of information. xd I wouldn't want a doctor who learned everything he knows on Wikipedia to operate on me (Although, if it got him through medical school with passing grades...). But that's different, I wouldn't expect someone to use it for that. For anything I need, wikipedia works fine, because I use it to look up just about anything. I mean, if I don't know what someone's talking about, Wikipedia's on my quickbar and I look there first. But it's hardly like someone's going to die if I'm misinformed. But you know, wikipedia is so much cheaper.... hmm....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:26 pm
FreeArsenal WatersMoon110 Doesn't Uncyclopedia uses Wikipedia's software? Most Wikis do. Read their articles.. xd Uncyclopedia is quite funny. I was just saying that I think they use Wikipedia's Wiki Software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:30 pm
WatersMoon110 FreeArsenal WatersMoon110 Doesn't Uncyclopedia uses Wikipedia's software? Most Wikis do. Read their articles.. xd Uncyclopedia is quite funny. I was just saying that I think they use Wikipedia's Wiki Software. Yeah, but it's still vastly different. In their policies anyway, I prefer it to Wikipedia... I think Wikipedia should never be used in debate though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:38 pm
FreeArsenal WatersMoon110 FreeArsenal WatersMoon110 Doesn't Uncyclopedia uses Wikipedia's software? Most Wikis do. Read their articles.. xd Uncyclopedia is quite funny. I was just saying that I think they use Wikipedia's Wiki Software. Yeah, but it's still vastly different. In their policies anyway, I prefer it to Wikipedia... I think Wikipedia should never be used in debate though. Depends on what you are using it for, really. If it's something simple (like, say, the latin definition of "fetus" - which came up as a link in the Debate) then there is no reason not to use Wikipedia, which at least is pretty certain to have the right one. If it's something complex (like, say, the Pro-Choice side of abortion issue as a whole) Wikipedia is not the best source to use. For most topics, it is best not to have Wikipedia as your only source, or for that matter really any sort of Encyclopdia is not a good idea as a main source. But Wikipedia is good for general common knowledge sorts of things, especially if they are not all that crucial to your main point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:33 pm
WatersMoon110 For most topics, it is best not to have Wikipedia as your only source, or for that matter really any sort of Encyclopdia is not a good idea as a main source. But Wikipedia is good for general common knowledge sorts of things, especially if they are not all that crucial to your main point. For information about a specific topic, perhaps Wikipedia is an "okay" source at best. We don't know who put the information up, and what citations they are using, it's basically a source of "common" knowledge, not "uncommon" or "complex" knowledge. Getting information from Wikipedia to increase your own knowledge is probably a good thing, using it to prove a point is probably a bad thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
