![]() |
|
| *AX SOFT>>>Wikipedia |
Wikipedia is one of the best human kind crations? |
Wikipedia is one of the best human kind crations? I wouldn't say so ... It's cool to look at but I woldn't trust too much information on Wikipedia. That's just my preference. not really..lots of the info is false Uhhhh, NO. A lot of the information given to you is not accurate. Don't trust Wikipedia. Well, there is some false stuff, but most of it is true. Especially the stuff about music. For me, it is indeed one of the best human creations. People believe that a lot of the information on wikipedia is false. Wikipedia is generally as accurate as other encyclopedias. Of course. Wiki-anything is great, because it's like a encylopedia, how-to book, etc, that you can write mental notes in. I'm assuming you meant creations. I agree to a degree. If its about something not to important it is usually extremely accurate but if its about something new or scientific then not so much. Oh well its fun nonetheless. I think it is good reference and I use it about once per day because I like to research for information. i wont say the best human kind creations but it sure is awesome if u just want a background info on a particular subject Sure there is some false information, nothing can be perfect but Wikipedia is a great resource on many subjects, as many of Wikipedia's articles have information gathered from reliable resources and there is a community of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia and fighting vandalism 24/7. I personally am a Wikipedia editor, and frequently participate in fighting vandalism and improving articles, so before you go questioning the reliability of Wikipedia, realize that there are many people working all over the world to make Wikipedia reliable for you. Definitely, the people that say wikipedia is unreliable are idiots. I've tried vandalizing articles, and my edits were fixed within minutes. Even if you put something true, but don't cite your sources, your edit will be removed. And wikipedia isn't a good place for spammers, I can't post any spam without it getting erased immediately. You can trust Wikipedia entries that have sources, otherwise, you have to take it with a grain of salt |
| Tags |
| Facebook Flickr Google MSN MySpace Wikipedia YouTube General - Internet Add-ons Desktops Laptops & Notebooks |
| Related information |
your question is very vague. use them? for what? for profit? are they yours? did you pay to use them? is my line of questioning leading to a "reasonable" answer? look up copywright laws. ... Oh yes, loads. Saw one today that was disputed by the artist themselves! I usually correct them and delete the bollocks. ...No I do question many statements that I read on wikipedia! I try to confirm info by checking a second source!** ...yes, see the instructions here: ... You would have to rephrase the search. "You Lose" must have some meaning in the tags set-up by whoever edited that Willy Wonka article. That's what you get when anyone can update a... I've had a look at the history of the article for you and it seems that the previous "paid survey" was rather short and uncategorised. You can, however, still view the article from i... Occasionally, Wikipedians lose their minds and get into edit wars over the most petty things. Here is a little list of such ones: Semen A user who "contributed" several photographs ... Yes, Wikipedia is reliable. Although I would never use it as a cited source, the External links sections of the pages are quite good. Also, if you need some background on a topic, I would definit... |
Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |