Is there a time you needed info

[Heller]

legit question,

does wiki not know anything?

 

[Ricemarine]

It knows something alright...

 

[2Xtreme21]

Tonight I actually needed a list of all the moves chess pieces make-- friend needed a reference list. Wiki has it, but it took a google search to pull it up as it's not in the article where you'd think it should be.

 

[olds]

I wouldn't use wikipedia for anything other than a time killer. If I need facts, I'll get it elsewhere.

 

[tasmanian]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
I would use wikipedia for anything other than a time killer. If I need facts, I'll get it elsewhere.

I tried that. So not worth it. When ever im searching for somthing a wikipedia article is almost always on the first page. If its not then theres some site that uses a wikipedia article as its own.

 

[mugs]

It doesn't have a lot of detailed information in a lot of areas. For instance, I work in the telecommunications industry, and there isn't much information about most of the equipment used in the industry.

 

[BoomerD]

Is there a tim you needed info

Tim Who?

I'll use teh wikipedia for on-line discussions such as in a forum, but so far, most of my college professors have said that anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source in an essay gets an automatic F for the paper.
i'm not willing to challenge that...it's their classroom, it's their rules...so I find other sources of information.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Is there a tim you needed info

Tim Who?

I'll use teh wikipedia for on-line discussions such as in a forum, but so far, most of my college professors have said that anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source in an essay gets an automatic F for the paper.
i'm not willing to challenge that...it's their classroom, it's their rules...so I find other sources of information.

:thumbsup: for your professors.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

People. Sometimes when I look for people it doesn't show up.

 

[Heller]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Is there a tim you needed info

Tim Who?

I'll use teh wikipedia for on-line discussions such as in a forum, but so far, most of my college professors have said that anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source in an essay gets an automatic F for the paper.
i'm not willing to challenge that...it's their classroom, it's their rules...so I find other sources of information.

wait, are you a professor or a student??

 

[Epic Fail]

Wikipedia is pretty weak on business, a Fortune 500 company might get two lines of blurb while an episode of TV show will get pages of information.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: mugs
It doesn't have a lot of detailed information in a lot of areas. For instance, I work in the telecommunications industry, and there isn't much information about most of the equipment used in the industry.

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Wikipedia is pretty weak on business, a Fortune 500 company might get two lines of blurb while an episode of TV show will get pages of information.

Then start an account, if you don't already have one, and add it.

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
I wouldn't use wikipedia for anything other than a time killer. If I need facts, I'll get it elsewhere.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
most of my college professors have said that anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source in an essay gets an automatic F for the paper.

I would use wikipedia to find those references, or at least some of them. a good amount of their articles at least cite external references that you can use. It was a lot different when I was in college, even though that was as recent as '98. hell, I had 1 of 6 computer based CD burners on the whole campus when I was a freshman, and 4 of the 6 were in my hall. Everyone else had zip drives or floppies. The school actually recommended that all students buy a zip drive. ha!

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Wikipedia is pretty weak on business, a Fortune 500 company might get two lines of blurb while an episode of TV show will get pages of information.

Then start an account, if you don't already have one, and add it.

And add info I don't know and was trying to look up in the first place?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Evadman

I would use wikipedia to find those references, or at least some of them. a good amount of their articles at least cite external references that you can use. It was a lot different when I was in college, even though that was as recent as '98. hell, I had 1 of 6 computer based CD burners on the whole campus when I was a freshman, and 4 of the 6 were in my hall. Everyone else had zip drives or floppies. The school actually recommended that all students buy a zip drive. ha!

I have used the external links to find information, but never cite Wikipedia...

I STILL have 2 Zip drives...one Zip 100 that came in my Sony PCV-130 (still use it from time to time) and a Zip 250 that I bought in 99 when I upgraded a Gateway...I had (and still do) lots of small files stored on those Zip Disks...(I bought a Costco sized pack...IIRC, it had 16 Zip 100 disks...DUDE--that's 1.6 Gigs!) I don't think I've used them in years...yet they take up shelf space...collecting dust.

 

[TallBill]

Wikipedia still has a lot of ground to cover. Articles are very incomplete and often fractured. However, Google knows Everything!

 

[0roo0roo]

some porn chicks aren't famous enough to be on it yet.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: mugs
It doesn't have a lot of detailed information in a lot of areas. For instance, I work in the telecommunications industry, and there isn't much information about most of the equipment used in the industry.

Then start an account, if you don't already have one, and add it.

I have an account, and have made a few hundred edits, but I don't know much about the industry - that's why I was looking stuff up on Wikipedia. I pretty much only know what I need to know to do my job.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: mugs
I pretty much only know what I need to know to do my job.

'/Brain esplodes/*

 

[DrPizza]

For what it's worth, the journal Nature did a review of Wikipedia's accuracy for scientific articles. The conclusion was that Wikipedia was just as good as Encyclopedia Brittanica. (for science). Imho, wikipedia has increased its accuracy and the amount of information it offers while Brittanica is much more static.

 

[A5]

It's good for things that can be easily verified by many people, like the basic areas and formulas of science, famous people, and well-known historical events...and pop culture/nerd culture (a classic example is the article for the song "Hollaback Girl", which is about 3 1024x768 screens longer than the article for the Battle of New Orleans - 8 to 5 in case you were wondering).

 

[Eeezee]

Yeah, but I'm a graduate student in physics, so I don't think I count.

It's GREAT for many fairly complicated math and physics questions, but some of the more obscure topics are simply not there. For example, it has most of the common Taylor series, but not all of the obscure (but easy) ones. It doesn't have everything but it does have many useful articles. You can confirm just about any scientific article on wikipedia in a textbook, it's a great source (and often easier to understand than mathworld)