|
laughtest (July 22, 2008 at 5:18 pm)
Unfortunately, wikipedia admins are a bunch of geeky teenagers with no social life. They continue to piss off a alienate people with advanced degrees, exprience, and credentials.
Wikipedia URL should be blocked from every university, college and school. Its really a fraud of intellect.
jmantnafan (July 17, 2008 at 2:37 am)
Hey Moron...people can add their own stuff to it. Conspiracy Theory against Wikipedia..that proves these people have no life.
MetaphysicalSciences (July 16, 2008 at 7:09 am)
Inaccurate source. Opinion not truth. Game masquerading as encyclopedia. Mob rule narrow-minded, unreasonable people, 10yr olds? Biased against spiritual figures/organizations. Articles on spirituality deleted by small groups, power trip for non-spiritual people. Well known churches, spiritual figures, traditions aren't listed. If they are, disparaged in discussion+edits. Erroneous due to biased views of various subjects.
Britannica objective, written by professionals, real research.
yubedude (July 14, 2008 at 2:44 pm)
Everyone thinks their opinion, their knowledge, is equally valid; yet when you want your car repaired or surgery preformed you demand an expert. A disconnect that speaks directly to this excellent video. But that is just my opinion.
MurlynRaydon (July 13, 2008 at 6:26 pm)
i use wiki all the time and it seems to be a great source of info, especially concerning sciences,and what i find the best is the external links to the topic your researching.BUT the thing to remember is that everything in life is just someones OPINION.sometimes it turns out to be a wrong opinion in the long run(plate techtonics for example)when i was a kid and the teacher pulled down the map of the world i said wow that looks like a puzzle, did all those continents fit together?she laughed
dannylberry2 (July 13, 2008 at 6:37 am)
Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give Chris Pirillo Credit!!!Give ChrisPirillo
TheGreatDolanmite (July 10, 2008 at 1:30 am)
I firmly believe that Wikipedia is one of, if not, the best technological invention of this young century. I firmly believe that high traffic articles should have to go through an extensive review process before being changed, and articles on touchy subjects should be handled academically. That is to say, without bias. All of this said, it's amazing how well it's turning out, considering anyone can change it. I've checked articles that I know something about, and they're amazingly accurate.
paulgreenfields (July 10, 2008 at 1:08 am)
Wikipedia is very good at famous articles, for example search "lion" and you'll se how good it is. Little-known articles suck. They're called stubs, by the way.
jiimy21 (July 9, 2008 at 2:50 pm)
wiki is ok. but when it comes to politicial or religious. its simply white washed or distorted. but for the concrete stuff. like theorys, chem. math. its great.
Kurtlane (July 9, 2008 at 2:05 pm)
I found Wikipedia an excellent source of learning about uncontroversial subjects. I use it all the time to learn about math or chemistry. Its articles are often much larger than in "proper" encyclopedias, and actually teach, almost like textbooks.
But once it gets to anything contentious or controversial, trouble begins. |
