The yellow rat snake that may enjoy some human contact.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

As soon as I read "From Wikipedia" I knew your argument is garbage. Why may you ask? Because Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE at ANYTIME. It's not a real source for information.

I suggest you read the FAQ on Wikipedia before you go bashing it....

Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Ourobouros

I suggest you read the FAQ on Wikipedia before you go bashing it....

Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's nice...

Maybe it's changed, but last I heard that universities would NOT allow it as a credible source when you hand in a paper. If this is no longer true, prove it to me.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

That's nice...

Maybe it's changed, but last I heard that universities wouldn't allow it as a credible source when you hand in a paper. If this is no longer true, prove it to me.

Well universities also tell you to use multiple sources and not put all your eggs in one basket. But appealing to authority does nothing to downplay Wikipedia's accuracy. Just because it's not one of the officially "trusted" resources does not render it useless. In fact, many articles include citations from sources that universities would approve. Wikipedia simply condenses many various sources cited into one place and saves time.

Now, I trust you've read through the entire FAQ prior to asking me to prove an irrelevant point? Because the negative connotations linked to Wikipedia's reliability isn't stopping you from taking 5 minutes to Google search other sources on the discussion to check others' information before you say they're wrong.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Ourobouros

Well universities also tell you to use multiple sources and not put all your eggs in one basket. But appealing to authority does nothing to downplay Wikipedia's accuracy. Just because it's not one of the officially "trusted" resources does not render it useless. In fact, many articles include citations from sources that universities would approve. Wikipedia simply condenses many various sources cited into one place and saves time.

Now, I trust you've read through the entire FAQ prior to asking me to prove an irrelevant point? Because the negative connotations linked to Wikipedia's reliability isn't stopping you from taking 5 minutes to Google search other sources on the discussion to check others' information before you say they're wrong.

Actually, I've got plenty to read through. I've made an entire thread upon this whole thread's topic. Go look for it. I'm still sorting through the material I gathered when I started that, mostly because I have been lazy and haven't put a lot of time into it.

I won't argue about Wiki anymore because it's pointless.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Actually, I've got plenty to read through. I've made an entire thread upon this whole thread's topic. Go look for it. I'm still sorting through the material I gathered when I started that, mostly because I have been lazy and haven't put a lot of time into it.

I won't argue about Wiki anymore because it's pointless.

Go look for it? And waste more of my time? Lol I'm happy it's over