Jump to content
Join our Facebook Group ×
An Old School Catholic Message Board

  

42 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
:detective: Edited by Resurrexi
Posted

Wikipedia and Lab Tests online saved my life in school. Both were very easy and accessible. I used it mostly on school assignments that didn't matter.

However, that being said, some of the stuff on the site is incorrect and should not be used for research or to back one's statements. I never used it on a paper.

Nihil Obstat
Posted

I'd never use it for sources, but it's a good way to get a general idea on a topic, and springboard into legitimate sources.

Vincent Vega
Posted

Completely positive.
I use it for tons of things. I never cite it, but identical information is usually found on the cited sources (of course, if a page has no sources, it's not hard to learn to ignore it and others like it).

elizabeth09
Posted

i think that Wikipedia is okay, but anyone can change it.

elizabeth09
Posted

i think that Wikipedia is okay, but anyone can change it.

eagle_eye222001
Posted

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1929056' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:40 PM']I'd never use it for sources, but it's a good way to get a general idea on a topic, and springboard into legitimate sources.[/quote]

ditto.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/hans+zimmer+%26+james+newton+howard/track/im+not+a+hero+(album+version)"]Hans Zimmer & James Newton Howard - I'm Not A Hero (Album Version)[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

Posted

i was never allowed to use it on research papers, but on small papers i usually got away with it. it's fun to browse when bored.... :mellow:

Nihil Obstat
Posted

[quote name='rachael' post='1929096' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:54 PM']i was never allowed to use it on research papers, but on small papers i usually got away with it. it's fun to browse when bored.... :mellow:[/quote]
I can literally spend three or more hours on there tabbing... done it before.
If I get on a roll on a particular subject, no problem.

Fidei Defensor
Posted

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1929101' date='Jul 22 2009, 09:55 PM']I can literally spend three or more hours on there tabbing... done it before.
If I get on a roll on a particular subject, no problem.[/quote]
That happens to me all the time. I can't help but expand my knowledge when I'm there.

Nihil Obstat
Posted

I once spent an entire evening, which was three or four hours, linking through physics topics. Can't understand any of it, but quarks and black holes and further dimensions are SO COOL to read about. :P

Posted

The thing that I don't like about Wikipedia is that their articles relating to Catholicism are often incorrect.

Vincent Vega
Posted

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1929146' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:18 PM']The thing that I don't like about Wikipedia is that their articles relating to Catholicism are often incorrect.[/quote]
In what sense?

Posted

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1929147' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:19 PM']In what sense?[/quote]

I would say in the same sense that the secular press often gets things wrong about Catholicism.

Posted

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1929146' date='Jul 23 2009, 12:18 AM']The thing that I don't like about Wikipedia is that their articles relating to Catholicism are often incorrect.[/quote]
Do you make corrections? You really should.

If the phorum isn't giving me enough debate entertainment, I sometimes check the "discussion" areas of Catholic pages. People get soooooo upset that those topics are even up! :lol:

Posted

Wikipedia scares me. It knows too much. About everything.

And yeah... it's wrong alot.

Nihil Obstat
Posted

[quote name='philothea' post='1929191' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:47 PM']Do you make corrections? You really should.[/quote]
I concur. Your pedantic personality is a force to be reckoned with on Wikipedia.
Just make sure you can use the word 'cogent' in normal conversation. When I used to contribute, that was the buzzword everyone seemed to throw around.

LouisvilleFan
Posted (edited)

Wikipedia is shown to be equally or even more accurate that traditional encyclopedias, especially on controversial topics due to the great amount of attention they receive from people giving input from every point of view. When you read a traditional encyclopedia, you're reading about a topic from the stance of only one or maybe a few people and regardless of how well educated they are and removed from bias they try to be, there is always some bias and even ignorance that wikipedia is able to compensate for.

No encylopedia is sufficient as a source for academic research, but then wikipedia can hook you up with sources that are sufficient.

I find wikipedia to be an incredible wealth of information. It's impressive how quickly we can find answers or research topics in a matter of minutes that would have required a trip to the library to flip through books only ten years ago. Comes in very handy when engaging workplace debates :)

Edited by LouisvilleFan
Posted

why are people complaining about the content of wikipedia?

if you think a certain content on the site is false then edit it.

what's the problem?

Posted

[quote name='ReinnieR' post='1929380' date='Jul 23 2009, 09:36 AM']why are people complaining about the content of wikipedia?

if you think a certain content on the site is false then edit it.

what's the problem?[/quote]

Why bother editing what someone else will probably come along and re-edit in a few weeks?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...