People who edit ceaselessly will have to spend their time doing something. Something other than Wikipedia will be at the top of a google search. Dudes in school will 1) have to research their crap the way they're actually taught to, and 2) survive the way we all managed to less than a decade ago. Or maybe they won't. Old people go on & on about how they were way tougher than youngins these days. Maybe this is the next step. One less place on the internet will be refusing to call it corn.
What do you mean by "It's corn"? I've heard plenty of silly sounding remarks, but never that.
Also Wikipedia is a a resource that people can work together to create, which you don't need to wait 20 years to see an update to. If I want to go read about a random episode of a TV show I can, then read about a plant in Thailand without leaving the site.
-- Mik Pick's Top 100 Ace Attorney songs with Links and Write Ups http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/61566894
So long as one takes the time to look at the source material that an article takes its information from it is no less reliable than a physical encyclopedia.
--
If you can read this I've momentarily stopped lurking.
First of all, Phase, every topic I make is always about this: Don't you ever try to change the true underlying subject. This is your last warning.
So long as one takes the time to look at the source material that an article takes its information from it is no less reliable than a physical encyclopedia.
First of all, you make it sound like people do that.
Second: Actually no. It isn't. I could go through the whole process of citing several arguments, past events, and you know, educators, and come up with wall-o-text as to why, but honestly, spending that much time to "win" some argument with a guy on the internet who would just go "wtf im reading all that" anyway just doesn't top my priority list.
But I'll break down the two general sides anyway: First, the whole being able to find general info on anything. That can be struck down with four words: This is the internet. It won't get harder to find this crap. If anything, it'll just be harder to be edited by teenagers trying to be authority figures on everything. Second: the academic research thing: Oh, yeah. Back in my day, we had to go all the way to a library's website & search utilities to see if they had crap written about what you're looking up. And we had to type that stuff uphill. Both ways. (Cuz the search for materials still ends with you actually looking at the book, right? Rather than just namedropping it in your citations, & maybe copying a quote from it you found on the internet, right?) As for article links, you know, the meat & potatoes of why anyone looks for sources on the internet, we old cranks had to use the 500 other search utilities (usually, a professor would go so far as to recommend 5 or so good ones to make your life easier) to find that stuff. And we did in the snow.
But seriously, all of you. You... do realize that by rather than trying to justify or at least simply rationalize the whole It-would-be-the-end-of-days attitude being shown, and simply going "lolotrollollolol," you're pretty much acting the way people who view Wikipedia & its editors & bizarre defense force as a cesspool of the internet see you as? I mean, you're not doing this ironically, right? Right? You're not using some sarcasm that simply can't be picked up through internet text, right? RIGHT!?
And to think, if you go back further, people didn't even have search engines! People had to rely on index cards to find stuff! Imagine, going through a bunch of index cards to go and find something in a big library full of books and not computers. That was real research. And then, you had to type up your papers on a typewriter! And before that, you even had to handwrite stuff! Scary, I know.
In other words, screw the new things that people come up with. These newfangled computers and search engines and Wikipedia and Microsoft Word and Internet are just not good.
Zach, that statement, which I sense absolutely no sarcasm at all from, doesn't really make any sense. Why? Because electronic stuff has indeed made it easier to find what you want. Something wikipedia doesn't actually do.
trolling would be intentionally making a topic this stupid for the reaction, nothing in pleinar's entire history here would indicate that this is disingenuous
Zach, that statement, which I sense absolutely no sarcasm at all from, doesn't really make any sense. Why? Because electronic stuff has indeed made it easier to find what you want. Something wikipedia doesn't actually do.
I don't know, it is pretty nice to quickly look up something on a single website that's not just a search engine that takes you to a bunch of other sites.
I never used Wikipedia for info since I was always too lazy to read around for one point that I needed, especially knowing something could be editted.
But you see, yes, nothing of value would be taken away. But, the easiest source of many things would be. Looking for pictures of simple characters, you tend to always see the pics from wiki first, for one.
Next, wikia sites would fall, aka, the fastest and most informative ways to find out about a fictional story character and etc.
Having taught a Calculus course last semester (to some very entitled freshmen), I feel the same way about Wolfram Alpha! English profs must hate wikipedia.
My personal opinion on Wikipedia is that for the stuff I know about, it's pretty poor, but for the stuff I don't, it's probably not perfect but it's good enough for me. I only read math articles though.
--
Watch me play games! http://www.livestream.com/dabu