My gym teacher can't be serious...

[Max Headroom]

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.

[bluaki]

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.

[Totla]

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.

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.

[Max Headroom]

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.

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.

[Jono2]

teachers not realizing = them thinking that it's a reliable source = you're allowed to use that site.

[Totla]

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.

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. :'(

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. >.>

[Jono2]

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.

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. :'(

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?

[Totla]

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.

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. :'(

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?

[Jono2]

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.

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. :'(

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.

[Totla]

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.

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. :'(

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.

[Jono2]

it doesn't make sense to me either, I'm just saying it how it is... :P

[Totla]

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. >_<

[Jono2]

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

[Totla]

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