She thinks that master locks can't be picked. :robotindifferent: I would have lol'd when she said that, but I didn't want to get into trouble.
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
They all do...
Just steal Wiki's collection of citations at the bottom of each of their articles >_>
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
Most of my teachers say that. One teacher said, "You cannot use Wikipedia as a source because it is not reliable. It is basically a chatroom where you enter a question and anybody in the world gives you an answer." :D
Quote from: OmegaPapyrus on October 21, 2007, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
Most of my teachers say that. One teacher said, "You cannot use Wikipedia as a source because it is not reliable. It is basically a chatroom where you enter a question and anybody in the world gives you an answer." :D
Your teachers like to confuse Yahoo Answers and Wikis <_<
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
My teacher said that as well.
I lol'd as well.
I picked multiple locks w/ a hairpin in my hotel room when i was in Europe. :P
it's not so hard once you learn how (I learned how on that trip :P).
Quote from: darkmariov2 on October 21, 2007, 02:48:36 PM
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
My teacher said that as well.
I lol'd as well.
My English teacher told me that. My Science teacher also told me that. My Geography teacher AND my Auto body teacher also told me that. :D
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 02:19:44 PM
Quote from: OmegaPapyrus on October 21, 2007, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
Most of my teachers say that. One teacher said, "You cannot use Wikipedia as a source because it is not reliable. It is basically a chatroom where you enter a question and anybody in the world gives you an answer." :D
Your teachers like to confuse Yahoo Answers and Wikis <_<
The principle is the same (at least in the discussion page).
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Yeah, but the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia makes it unreliable.
I'd love to be able to use Wikipedia for citations, but you simply can't.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Yeah, but the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia makes it unreliable.
I'd love to be able to use Wikipedia for citations, but you simply can't.
If you edit something, a hundred people go and check that edit right away, then try to verify it.
Nothing stays up for more than five minutes, really.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Yeah, but the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia makes it unreliable.
I'd love to be able to use Wikipedia for citations, but you simply can't.
If you edit something, a hundred people go and check that edit right away, then try to verify it.
Nothing stays up for more than five minutes, really.
there have been cases of things that just simply don't exist that got wikipedia pages.
if you go to the more obscure pages, they won't be edited back right away if what you type in is semi-credible.
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
My school blocked Wikipedia :P
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:37:45 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Yeah, but the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia makes it unreliable.
I'd love to be able to use Wikipedia for citations, but you simply can't.
If you edit something, a hundred people go and check that edit right away, then try to verify it.
Nothing stays up for more than five minutes, really.
there have been cases of things that just simply don't exist that got wikipedia pages.
if you go to the more obscure pages, they won't be edited back right away if what you type in is semi-credible.
Yes, because people use "obscure pages" for reports so often.
Quote from: Kazooie-Banjo on October 21, 2007, 04:38:45 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:37:45 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Yeah, but the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia makes it unreliable.
I'd love to be able to use Wikipedia for citations, but you simply can't.
If you edit something, a hundred people go and check that edit right away, then try to verify it.
Nothing stays up for more than five minutes, really.
there have been cases of things that just simply don't exist that got wikipedia pages.
if you go to the more obscure pages, they won't be edited back right away if what you type in is semi-credible.
Yes, because people use "obscure pages" for reports so often.
The Residential Schools.
ever heard of them? Nope.
Last year, I did a report on them.
Wiki it.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:37:45 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Yeah, but the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia makes it unreliable.
I'd love to be able to use Wikipedia for citations, but you simply can't.
If you edit something, a hundred people go and check that edit right away, then try to verify it.
Nothing stays up for more than five minutes, really.
there have been cases of things that just simply don't exist that got wikipedia pages.
if you go to the more obscure pages, they won't be edited back right away if what you type in is semi-credible.
Oh no, it's incorrect for a few hours.
Wiki is actually more reliable than most sites.
Quote from: Lotos on October 21, 2007, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Zovistograt on October 21, 2007, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: Riosan on October 21, 2007, 02:12:23 PM
My English teacher said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
I lol'd.
My school blocked Wikipedia :P
My school is banned from it :P
That too...before it was blocked, our school had been IP banned for 2 years prior.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Kazooie-Banjo on October 21, 2007, 04:38:45 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:37:45 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Wikipedia isn't reliable, simply because anybody can edit it.
Dora the Explorer....
Any person who reads Wiki and has half a brain knows to check past revisions and/or its citations...
right, but if someone changes Uwe Boll's birthday by one year, who is really going to notice?
wikipedia isn't a citable source.
Technically, anyone can change anything on any site, but it may not be legal. :x
Yeah, but the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia makes it unreliable.
I'd love to be able to use Wikipedia for citations, but you simply can't.
If you edit something, a hundred people go and check that edit right away, then try to verify it.
Nothing stays up for more than five minutes, really.
there have been cases of things that just simply don't exist that got wikipedia pages.
if you go to the more obscure pages, they won't be edited back right away if what you type in is semi-credible.
Yes, because people use "obscure pages" for reports so often.
The Residential Schools.
ever heard of them? Nope.
Last year, I did a report on them.
Wiki it.
Yes, because a few exceptions render "so often" useless. There
has to be exceptions, or I would've said that nobody
ever uses "obscure pages."
dlakjdlkfj wat are logic i dunt now howto use it teecher \(O_o)/ lkjlkjl
And just like there are exceptions, there are plenty of instances where obscure pages are reverted back to normal forms after vandalism very quickly. Pages on the Soudan Mine in MN are good examples of that.
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Again, wikipedia is more reliable than most sites.
Also, people constantly patrol the recent edits page, verifying edits.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Again, wikipedia is more reliable than most sites.
Also, people constantly patrol the recent edits page, verifying edits.
just because it's more reliable than most sites, doesn't mean that its terribly reliable. for a report, you're much better off getting something off of CBC or out of an encyclopedia.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Again, wikipedia is more reliable than most sites.
Also, people constantly patrol the recent edits page, verifying edits.
just because it's more reliable than most sites, doesn't mean that its terribly reliable. for a report, you're much better off getting something off of CBC or out of an encyclopedia.
Again, more reliable than at least 90% of sites out there, and probably the most reliable free one.
You know, most people don't have recent encyclopedias lying around their house.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Again, wikipedia is more reliable than most sites.
Also, people constantly patrol the recent edits page, verifying edits.
just because it's more reliable than most sites, doesn't mean that its terribly reliable. for a report, you're much better off getting something off of CBC or out of an encyclopedia.
Again, more reliable than at least 90% of sites out there, and probably the most reliable free one.
You know, most people don't have recent encyclopedias lying around their house.
CBC
CNN (lol, cnn)
encyclopedia.org follows the same setup, except that it can't be edited by anyone.
most google searches will give you reliable sources.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
And there's a bigger list of obscure pages that don't fall into that category than one would think. You're not really making a very good point here.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Again, wikipedia is more reliable than most sites.
Also, people constantly patrol the recent edits page, verifying edits.
just because it's more reliable than most sites, doesn't mean that its terribly reliable. for a report, you're much better off getting something off of CBC or out of an encyclopedia.
Again, more reliable than at least 90% of sites out there, and probably the most reliable free one.
You know, most people don't have recent encyclopedias lying around their house.
CBC
CNN (lol, cnn)
encyclopedia.org follows the same setup, except that it can't be edited by anyone.
most google searches will give you reliable sources.
I google "Thomas Paine".
Wikipedia is the first link.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Again, wikipedia is more reliable than most sites.
Also, people constantly patrol the recent edits page, verifying edits.
just because it's more reliable than most sites, doesn't mean that its terribly reliable. for a report, you're much better off getting something off of CBC or out of an encyclopedia.
Again, more reliable than at least 90% of sites out there, and probably the most reliable free one.
You know, most people don't have recent encyclopedias lying around their house.
CBC
CNN (lol, cnn)
encyclopedia.org follows the same setup, except that it can't be edited by anyone.
most google searches will give you reliable sources.
I google "Thomas Paine".
Wikipedia is the first link.
if you google basically anything, Wikipedia is the first link.
I'm just saying, it's because anyone can edit it. I'd love to be able to use it, but the reason teachers don't like it is because anyone can edit the website.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:20:25 PM
if you google basically anything, Wikipedia is the first link.
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Uh... no. Wikipedia doesn't advertise at all.
This baseless statement almost voids your entire argument's validity.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:20:25 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 04:59:47 PM
Guillame Sayer
Grassy Narrows
both topics that you can do a report on in canada.
what about companies? something about when Apple was founded probably would go unnoticed for quite some time.
when games were released?
there is a bigger list of exceptions than one would think.
Again, wikipedia is more reliable than most sites.
Also, people constantly patrol the recent edits page, verifying edits.
just because it's more reliable than most sites, doesn't mean that its terribly reliable. for a report, you're much better off getting something off of CBC or out of an encyclopedia.
Again, more reliable than at least 90% of sites out there, and probably the most reliable free one.
You know, most people don't have recent encyclopedias lying around their house.
CBC
CNN (lol, cnn)
encyclopedia.org follows the same setup, except that it can't be edited by anyone.
most google searches will give you reliable sources.
I google "Thomas Paine".
Wikipedia is the first link.
if you google basically anything, Wikipedia is the first link.
I'm just saying, it's because anyone can edit it. I'd love to be able to use it, but the reason teachers don't like it is because anyone can edit the website.
Again, anyone can edit any website, if they know how.
But what teachers don't realize, is that most all vandalism is reverted in about 5 minutes...and they're idiots.
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:20:25 PM
if you google basically anything, Wikipedia is the first link.
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
OBVIOUSLY if they have enough money to be first on almost every google search, they must be reliable for people to donate that money to them.
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Uh... no. Wikipedia doesn't pay anyone at all.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:23:57 PM
OBVIOUSLY if they have enough money to be first on almost every google search, they must be reliable for people to donate that money to them.
Obviously.
teachers not realizing = them thinking that it's a reliable source = you're allowed to use that site.
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:25:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Uh... no. Wikipedia doesn't pay anyone at all.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:23:57 PM
OBVIOUSLY if they have enough money to be first on almost every google search, they must be reliable for people to donate that money to them.
Obviously.
I couldn't find a point to your post, sorry. :'(
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
teachers not realizing = them thinking that it's a reliable source = you're allowed to use that site.
No, them not realizing makes it so you can't use it as a source. >.>
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:25:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Uh... no. Wikipedia doesn't pay anyone at all.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:23:57 PM
OBVIOUSLY if they have enough money to be first on almost every google search, they must be reliable for people to donate that money to them.
Obviously.
I couldn't find a point to your post, sorry. :'(
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
teachers not realizing = them thinking that it's a reliable source = you're allowed to use that site.
No, them not realizing makes it so you can't use it as a source. >.>
no, them not realizing that it's not credible means that they'll let it slide.
by your logic, should we be able to use any sites on the internet at all, since any of them can be edited?
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:31:07 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:25:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Uh... no. Wikipedia doesn't pay anyone at all.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:23:57 PM
OBVIOUSLY if they have enough money to be first on almost every google search, they must be reliable for people to donate that money to them.
Obviously.
I couldn't find a point to your post, sorry. :'(
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
teachers not realizing = them thinking that it's a reliable source = you're allowed to use that site.
No, them not realizing makes it so you can't use it as a source. >.>
no, them not realizing that it's not credible means that they'll let it slide.
by your logic, should we be able to use any sites on the internet at all, since any of them can be edited?
They think it's not credible, but it is.
by your logic, should we not be able to use any site on the internet at all, since any of them can be edited?
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:33:50 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:31:07 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:25:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Uh... no. Wikipedia doesn't pay anyone at all.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:23:57 PM
OBVIOUSLY if they have enough money to be first on almost every google search, they must be reliable for people to donate that money to them.
Obviously.
I couldn't find a point to your post, sorry. :'(
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
teachers not realizing = them thinking that it's a reliable source = you're allowed to use that site.
No, them not realizing makes it so you can't use it as a source. >.>
no, them not realizing that it's not credible means that they'll let it slide.
by your logic, should we be able to use any sites on the internet at all, since any of them can be edited?
They think it's not credible, but it is.
by your logic, should we not be able to use any site on the internet at all, since any of them can be edited?
whaa? somethings going in circles here.
we should be able to use websites that are not easily edited. nobody is going to hack into The Globe and Mail and edit an article just for kicks and giggles. at the same time, nobody is going to edit the same article on Wikipedia.
but teachers see it as if for some reason, that if a person would feel a need to edit some random article, they would and it would go unchecked, and that is why they don't allow it.
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:37:53 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:33:50 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:31:07 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:25:05 PM
Quote from: bluaki on October 21, 2007, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: I_AM_A_PERSON on October 21, 2007, 05:21:08 PM
That proves nothing. The reason why it's up there because people payed for it to be there.
Uh... no. Wikipedia doesn't pay anyone at all.
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:23:57 PM
OBVIOUSLY if they have enough money to be first on almost every google search, they must be reliable for people to donate that money to them.
Obviously.
I couldn't find a point to your post, sorry. :'(
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
teachers not realizing = them thinking that it's a reliable source = you're allowed to use that site.
No, them not realizing makes it so you can't use it as a source. >.>
no, them not realizing that it's not credible means that they'll let it slide.
by your logic, should we be able to use any sites on the internet at all, since any of them can be edited?
They think it's not credible, but it is.
by your logic, should we not be able to use any site on the internet at all, since any of them can be edited?
whaa? somethings going in circles here.
we should be able to use websites that are not easily edited. nobody is going to hack into The Globe and Mail and edit an article just for kicks and giggles. at the same time, nobody is going to edit the same article on Wikipedia.
but teachers see it as if for some reason, that if a person would feel a need to edit some random article, they would and it would go unchecked, and that is why they don't allow it.
I don't think that just because some people vandalize articles, that the whole site should be discredited. I mean, I get why they don't allow it, but it still doesn't make sense to me.
it doesn't make sense to me either, I'm just saying it how it is... :P
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:42:35 PM
it doesn't make sense to me either, I'm just saying it how it is... :P
I was only arguing because I thought you agreed with the teachers. >_<
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:45:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:42:35 PM
it doesn't make sense to me either, I'm just saying it how it is... :P
I was only arguing because I thought you agreed with the teachers. >_<
nope. teachers are dumb. :P
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:46:50 PM
Quote from: Totla on October 21, 2007, 05:45:11 PM
Quote from: Jono2 on October 21, 2007, 05:42:35 PM
it doesn't make sense to me either, I'm just saying it how it is... :P
I was only arguing because I thought you agreed with the teachers. >_<
nope. teachers are dumb. :P
Agreed. :P