Retro Shooter with generated content4.00 / 5.00 206 Views
Blow the enemy to hell or die a hero! Do you have the Expendaballs for combat, Soldier?3.79 / 5.00 2,609 Views
It's time to escape the city!3.71 / 5.00 1,135 Views
At 8/18/11 04:24 PM, bgraybr wrote:At 8/18/11 04:18 PM, fuzzum111 wrote: it's un creditedWhat? There's citations on almost every article. I use wikipedia to get general information and then check out the sources listed at the bottom of the article usually. Or did you mean that the author of the Wikipedia page isn't credited?
Meh, if a teacher is that hardcore about it, than I'd probably just go to the part of the page that says where things are cited from and than attribute my sources to those sites. Loophole achieved.
At 8/18/11 07:07 PM, Hybrid-Of-Souls wrote: I would think circumventing that rule is easy, the way some portions of any article will have a superscript number in the middle of it, and that clicking the number leads you to a more teacher-accepted source.
This. You just use the source that was provided and the source obviously must have credibility.
I seriously don't get how knowing facts about history would help you get a better job.
F THE SYSTEM
teachers hate Wikipedia because it makes them obsolete XD
they're afraid that people are going to realize that most of them suck at their jobs and random strangers editing wikipedia are far more intelligent than they could ever be.
seriously... most grade school, public teachers seem to be morons... from my experience anyway.
Most of my teachers don't give a shit, but if you do get one of those bitchy ones, just use the original citations on the wiki.
It is very simple to extract information from. I mostly use wikipedia for the foundation of my school projects, and search around and use books to verify and add to my foundation.
3DS friend code NG member list. / I talk about game design using cartoons on youtube. / My Wii U username is Bobbybroccoli.
I would just go to wikipedia and go to the sources they site.
Ｃａｎ ｙｏｕ ｆｅｅｌ ｉｔ ｍｉｓｔｅｒ Ｋｒａｂｓ？
At 8/18/11 05:15 PM, CharltonChinchilla wrote: Wikipedia is great as long as the pages you're using have credible sources and references at the bottom. if pages don't have a lot then that page is probably bullshit. But most of em have them in abundance so it's no problem.
I am really sugested that i just edited without sucess.
I am not really making people stupid on Wikipedia.
I use the citations at the bottom of the page usually anyway. And a lot of the pages that are targeted for fucking around with are locked.
A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.
I get that too in my school, except in this case I'm not allowed to use Wikipedia because the teachers think that if we use it then we just copy and paste the information into our documents / books. It's more so with Global Perspectives, especially where I'm supposed to credit the source. 90% of the time I can assure you that the source is Wikipedia.
I've been more trusting of government websites now, at least they have accurate information 90% of the time and have more credibility than Wikipedia.
It's not called "a free encyclopedia" for no reason.
Slint approves of me! | "This is Newgrounds.com, not Disney.com" - WadeFulp
"Sit look rub panda" - Alan Davies
Most teachers don't really know anything about the Internet, so no surprise that most of them think Wikipedia is an evil thing. They think anybody can just go on the Obama article and edit information, but little do they know that it's heavily moderated and only moderators can edit his article, and the same applies with many important articles. But Wikipedia in general is fairly moderated well.
i used wikipedia and some classes and i passed
Did you mention to her that some of the information is cited and after reading the information you can go to the cited sources and double check to make sure it's accurate.