The problem with wikipedia.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

The article about WATER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water) contains not a single use of the word "wet."

That's right, according to wikipedia, water is not wet.

[Caster13]

This is why wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

[Old Ape Face]

The article about WATER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water) contains not a single use of the word "wet."

That's right, according to wikipedia, water is not wet.

Technically that is true, since you need water to make things wet, you can't simply make the thing that makes things wet, wet.

[Holy Knight]

"Wet" is a qualitative descriptor pertaining to subjective human experience. It doesn't say anything about the property of water itself since "wet" can be applied to many other room-temperature liquids as well.

You can say oil is "oily" for example, but that doesn't say what kind of oil it is. Thus, the descriptor is irrelevant, not to mention, obvious.

[fujyoshi]

guess wut everyone water is not wet :'D and guess what also those signs like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:D-P005_Kein_Trinkwasser.svg

are meant to be intimidating o_o

[Old Ape Face]

Water is, However: a composition of the two most abundant elements in the universe, Hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen)and Oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen), along with Nitrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen) and Carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon). Thus I believe there is a chance for a biological ecosystem on other planets.

[Magami No ER]

So edit it yourself and put "wet."

[Old Ape Face]

The problem with Wikipedia is that it isn't written in a way that's inducive to normal people, when you try to read something like the DNA article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna) you're hit with a wall of jargon written by doctors or people of equal calibre and don't obtain any real overview or grasp of the subject by the end of it, which is the service an encyclopaedia is supposed to provide!

When it comes to articles on philosophy, religion or mysticism any sort of logic or scholarship goes out of the window, you can almost see where rivalling factions have counter-edited each other.

Good pages are ones like the heraldry article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldry) because it's concise and has lots of pictures to help you along.

But what if I understand this doctor's jargon? Reading it might improve your vocabulary.

[Tom Servo]

The problem with Wikipedia is that it isn't written in a way that's inducive to normal people, when you try to read something like the DNA article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna) you're hit with a wall of jargon written by doctors or people of equal calibre and don't obtain any real overview or grasp of the subject by the end of it, which is the service an encyclopaedia is supposed to provide!

When it comes to articles on philosophy, religion or mysticism any sort of logic or scholarship goes out the window, you can almost see where rivalling factions have counter-edited each other.

Good pages are ones like the heraldry article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldry) because it's concise and has lots of pictures to help you along.

[Jon]

What I found hilarious is off to the side, where all the pictures are, it has a video of liquid water in motion! Holy crap!

Wasted bandwidth...

[Tom Servo]

But what if I understand this doctor's jargon? Reading it might improve your vocabulary.
If you already understand the big words and all the finery of the subject you don't need to visit the site to begin with!

What I found hilarious is off to the side, where all the pictures are, it has a video of liquid water in motion! Holy crap!

Wasted bandwidth...
but not having that video would discriminate against people who don't have taps...

[Old Ape Face]

Understanding a word in a text book and having the knowledge before reading the subject are two different things in my opinion.

[Caster13]

but not having that video would discriminate against people who don't have taps...

You know what? The sad thing is that there are people who would (probably have already) sue over something similar.:|

This year would be automatically incredibly awesome if political correctness was done away with.

[GreatNekoKoneko]

...see, i stopped reading after i saw "Wikipedia".

[Leader Desslock]

Water is, However: a composition of the two most abundant elements in the universe, Hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen)and Oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen)
Helium, Yukimura. The second most abundant element in the universe is Helium, not Oxygen.

[Old Ape Face]

Helium, Yukimura. The second most abundant element in the universe is Helium, not Oxygen.

Oxygen is 3rd actually, I did read that part in the Wiki article,

Oxygen is the third most abundant chemical element in the universe, after hydrogen and helium.

^where i got it from

Water has been detected in interstellar clouds within our galaxy, the Milky Way. It is believed that water exists in abundance in other galaxies too, because its components, hydrogen and oxygen, are among the most abundant elements in the universe. Interstellar clouds eventually condense into solar nebulae and solar systems, such as ours.

Again the way I write things is taken by an error, this is the line of text I was referencing from in the wiki article.

Yes clearly that is not what I wrote, but that is what I meant.

Yukimura seems to go through phases. The last one was liking lesbians (acceptable), now it's saying stuff that he has absolutely no clue about in a certain way to make himself seem smart.

I do know what I'm talking about, it's just I seem to miss every time I try to repost some bit of information from the source.

Of cource now you all probably assume I just did a quick search to back me up, whether that's the truth or not, this is the internet and you're liable to accuse me of anything.

I could say I did acknowledge the fact that Oxygen was before Helium, but due to a bit of laziness I didn't bother to fix it.

And thanks to Wikipedia, we are all a little bit smarter from this discussion, unless you're Billy Madison in which case god have mercy on your soul.

[Leader Desslock]

... correcting Yukimura is like attaching wheels to a tomato: time consuming and completely pointless.
Fair enough. Then I'll just swap over to the following quote from Harlan Ellison:

The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.

[Old Ape Face]

Stupidity? Where does that fall in the periodic table?

Now come on that is clearly a low blow, an error is an error.

I find your praise of arrogance disturbing.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

So edit it yourself and put "wet."

and here I thought I was going to be the only one in the thread who knew how to tell a joke! He he he ho ho ho



^ I have managed to put wheels on said tomato. It's all about making the impossible possible brother.


Spadesy. First one in. LAST ONE OUT

[taily]

The problem with Wikipedia is that it isn't written in a way that's inducive to normal people, when you try to read something like the DNA article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna) you're hit with a wall of jargon written by doctors or people of equal calibre and don't obtain any real overview or grasp of the subject by the end of it, which is the service an encyclopaedia is supposed to provide!

When it comes to articles on philosophy, religion or mysticism any sort of logic or scholarship goes out the window, you can almost see where rivalling factions have counter-edited each other.

Good pages are ones like the heraldry article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldry) because it's concise and has lots of pictures to help you along.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

[taily]

This is why wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Wikipedia is pretty reliable.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Wikipedia is pretty reliable.

It doesn't think water is wet.

[RecentMidget]

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/orc72/Shana/SeeWikiMotivationjpg.jpg

[Caster13]

^Why couldn't you post that a few days ago!? That would have been the Best Post of 2008!!!!

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

Stupidity? Where does that fall in the periodic table?

Now come on that is clearly a low blow, an error is an error.

I find your praise of arrogance disturbing.

Shake it off...you've probably come back from worse than that...and I know that you've caused your fair share of trouble (weren't u from Hartford?) on these forums. Are you really that surprised?

It doesn't think water is wet.

Wikipedia thinks whatever we want it to think. That could be the root of the problem.

[Haro!]

Yukimura seems to go through phases. The last one was liking lesbians (acceptable), now it's saying stuff that he has absolutely no clue about in a certain way to make himself seem smart.

Whoa. You know its bad when even Kenpachi is making fun of you.

Anyway. Yeah. I'd expect "wet" to be part of any GOOD description of water. I mean, who would need to know that it is made of hydrogen and oxygen? I don't. What good does that do me?

[Delta-Pheonix]

This reminds me of an essay to write for A level Biology, everyone used wikipedia to find the importance of water in biology. Of course theres always one clod who copy pastes the whole damn article and then wonders why he's being bollocked for plagerism

[RecentMidget]

since eveyone is complaining about the fact that the wiki page doesn't even have the word 'wet' in it, I will say this.

nothing is truely wet, it just has water on it. When you get out of a pool, you are'nt wet, you just have water on you. When you dry off with a towel, the towel isn't wet, it just has water in it. People just made the word to simplify a conversation.

"hey, i just got out of the shower and have water all over me"
or
"hey, i just got out of the shower and am really wet"

which sounds better?

find out next time on DragonBall Z

[taily]

being covered in water=wet

[fujyoshi]

wow we just learned that water was wet from wikipedia :'D

[Tom Servo]

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
Nice! I didn't know there were simpler versions of articles. Are they linked from the main articles themselves anywhere?

[taily]

I don't think so, but they should be.

[Meggles]

I'm pretty sure that most articles have an option on the language thing called Simple English which is for people learning English. The articles are written so a 4-year-old with Down Syndrome can understand.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Nice! I didn't know there were simpler versions of articles. Are they linked from the main articles themselves anywhere?

Yes. Whenever you go to a page with "foriegn language" versions of the article, look on the left and scan downward till you see the list of foreign language versions, sometimes there will be simple english. I msyelf wrote the simple english page about Space Runaway Ideon.

It kind of helps sometimes to look up "nerd" things in foriegn languages. Like when a chinese person is trying to tell me about how much they love Saint Seiya.

[goddessofanime]

You all suck for reading Wikipedia. Seriously...

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

You all suck for reading Wikipedia. Seriously...

Those who use it as a main reference may have something to answer for. Equal blame on the people EDIT it. One of the many ideas that make me go, why?

[taily]

HEY!

What did I do!!?

It's more what you didn't do.

Those who use it as a main reference may have something to answer for.

It's easily one of the most reliable sorces on the net all-round, although you can often find more reliable/helpful sites for one or two subjects, I.e wikia (<----Great for anime, search "[anime title] wikia").

Lots of people are under the paranoid dillusion that people spend all day sitting there vadalising wikipedia articles. It's usually pretty obvious when this happens, and even if not it gets caught pretty quick for most article. 1-3 strikes (depending on the severity of the vandelism) lands you an IP ban. if multiple failedits come from the same network i.e a school, the whole network is banned from editing articles.

[fujyoshi]

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/orc72/Shana/SeeWikiMotivationjpg.jpg

/heh ZOMG I remember that ahahahhahaha thats from one 'a those extras on the shakugan no shana DVDs ahahahaha anyway the fujyoshi has something to say about water not being wet -_=

-_= (http://media.putfile.com/water-is-not-wet-folks)

[Leader Desslock]

I've browsed a few of the other Wiki entries for similar omissions. The article about the Sun does assure us that "solar material is hot", but the article about the Universe neglects to describe the universe as "big" (which one can confirm in the Hitchhiker's Guide, at any rate).

The article about Bears lacks any information at all about whether or not a bear ***** in the woods, but the article about the Pope does mention that's he's Catholic.

I dunno. Seems like a very unevenly written document, if you ask me.

[Caster13]

I dunno. Seems like a very unevenly written document, if you ask me.

Duh, it's wikipedia.

[Old Ape Face]

I've browsed a few of the other Wiki entries for similar omissions. The article about the Sun does assure us that "solar material is hot", but the article about the Universe neglects to describe the universe as "big" (which one can confirm in the Hitchhiker's Guide, at any rate).

The article about Bears lacks any information at all about whether or not a bear ***** in the woods, but the article about the Pope does mention that's he's Catholic.

I dunno. Seems like a very unevenly written document, if you ask me.

but are those adjectives relevant to the actual subject? I mean yeah the Universe is big, but does that really describe what it really is? You read a dictionary and you don't see the word big in the universe definition. They might give you a hint that it is massive, probably infinite in size, they even explain that it has a specific shape, but does big really have a significant understanding of what it is?

You read the word water in the dictionary and I doubt you will ever see the word wet in it's definition.

Are these little words so important in your research that you have to complain that an information hub doesn't mention them? I mean when I'm going to look up information, mostly I would already consider the obvious.

[Leader Desslock]

Yukimura... Kenpachi...

Do we have to explain EVERY single joke to you two? Christ on a crutch, guys. I made reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide, and criticized an article for its lack of clarity regarding ursine defecation habits.

My last two statements are obvious references to a pair of English idiomatic expressions, namely "Does a bear **** in the woods?" and "Is the Pope Catholic?"

If you took any part of my post seriously, then I have to ask if you woke up in a bathtub full of ice with a mysterious new scar and a note that informed you that your humours had just been removed.

[Old Ape Face]

I take everything seriously, it is a habit, or more so a disability of mine.

[Caster13]

I've never seen Hitchhiker's, so I wouldn't know.

[goddessofanime]

Those who use it as a main reference may have something to answer for. Equal blame on the people EDIT it. One of the many ideas that make me go, why?



That's the thing though. Depends on what you're looking up...

but in general because of being able to edit articles on there, you can't really take it seriously sometiomes. That's what I meant

[Caster13]

The section on anime fans has been edited by other people to make us all look like fanboys and fangirls.

[goddessofanime]

that's becaue we are.

[Leader Desslock]

From the Hitchhiker's Guide entry on Space:

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

Now THAT's an encyclopedia entry. It doesn't make me want to panic, for one thing. I value that in my reference material.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

I've never seen Hitchhiker's, so I wouldn't know.

Try the book first....

Yukimura... Kenpachi...

Do we have to explain EVERY single joke to you two? Christ on a crutch, guys. I made reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide, and criticized an article for its lack of clarity regarding ursine defecation habits.

My last two statements are obvious references to a pair of English idiomatic expressions, namely "Does a bear **** in the woods?" and "Is the Pope Catholic?"

If you took any part of my post seriously, then I have to ask if you woke up in a bathtub full of ice with a mysterious new scar and a note that informed you that your humours had just been removed.

I would try utilizing emoticons in such cases. It would dissipate any type of confusion, at least a good percentage, going forward. ;)

I take everything seriously, it is a habit, or more so a disability of mine.

Well then the emoticon advice just won't do here. I can tell though, you do sound very serious.

[Old Ape Face]

Well then the emoticon advice just won't do here. I can tell though, you do sound very serious.

I would believe this is the source of my misadventures around this forum.

Not exactly easily gullible just, when i take stuff in that's sort of missing something my OCD kicks in.

[tenshi_a]

1. Water is implied wet in wikipedia, but you have to read around the subject to find that out. Water is described as liquid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid), and if you click through to the article on liquid, you find out that "Only liquids display wetting properties" and it links through to the article on wetting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

2. HAHA there's a page on wetting.

3. My God It's Complex! There are tons of formulas and stuff! :eek:

4. Avoid the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy movie. Read the books, listen to the radio series, watch the TV series.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

That's the thing though. Depends on what you're looking up...

but in general because of being able to edit articles on there, you can't really take it seriously sometiomes. That's what I meant

Yeah. I think we're agreed on that part. Things that don't have valid references would be an automatic red flag but the idea of a Wiki has its flaws in general. Like I stated before, as long as it is not used as a main reference, it can be one source of information browsing.

I would believe this is the source of my misadventures around this forum.

Not exactly easily gullible just, when i take stuff in that's sort of missing something my OCD kicks in.

Misadventures? Misunderstandings maybe? Whatever the case, it seems that certain jokes cater to varying sense of humors. If you didn't think it was funny, then it wasn't funny to you. Not everyone reacts the same way and I'm sure it's all in good fun.

Missing something? It was probably the emoticons then.

[ZechsMerquise1]

Wiki is good when your teacher isn't computer literate ;D just give them a different website lol

[Old Ape Face]

Misadventures? Misunderstandings maybe? Whatever the case, it seems that certain jokes cater to varying sense of humors. If you didn't think it was funny, then it wasn't funny to you. Not everyone reacts the same way and I'm sure it's all in good fun.

Missing something? It was probably the emoticons then.

Oh I understand a lot, just when I post sometimes I forget a few things, or if I really don't know something never hurts to be corrected <_< as long as I'm not labeled as a dumb *** retard who wont sit and listen.

There is more faith in me understanding something then just throwing knives at me when i get something wrong.

[taily]

Yeah they want a negative response, so? Is it wrong to brush it off and keep a steady face? Hey people suck, I know that, but I'm not going to let them enjoy the moment on account of a retarded subject to make fun of me with. This is the internet, like a prison either you be someone's ***** or you make someone your *****, and I'm neither.


What was that?

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

Oh I understand a lot, just when I post sometimes I forget a few things, or if I really don't know something never hurts to be corrected <_< as long as I'm not labeled as a dumb *** retard who wont sit and listen.

There is more faith in me understanding something then just throwing knives at me when i get something wrong.

I'm sure we're all agreed that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source of information and I believe that was the original intent of this thread.

I don't know about who's labeling but of course there are those here who would take advantage of correcting other people. It's all politics, egos and the such but it shouldn't be taken as anything too serious. Although I cannot speak for other people or their seemingly malicious intents (or possibly lack of) it's good to keep a level head at all times.

Throwing knives at you? You have some options; Dodge/parry them, catch them or stand there and do nothing. A little reciprocation is not uncommon either but gauge each situation accordingly.

[Old Ape Face]

I'm sure we're all agreed that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source of information and I believe that was the original intent of this thread.

It's more reliable then my Bull ****.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

It's more reliable then my Bull ****.

Unless you are the one editing Wiki...
Think about it this way; you will make mistakes on here again and be called out for them. That goes true for everyone else because as much as people like to think they are above one another (laughable), we are just people.

Take this for example. There are some little 'pups' on here who are recently trying to stir things up with me. I look at their ages and just shake my head in disappointment as I wonder how youth is wasted on such nonsense (they are old enough to have more common sense). It's really nothing to get so riled up about.

You made an inaccurate statement and it happens. It just depends on how you handle the situation.

[Shiroiyuki]

Yo, Yukimura -- stop derailing the thread with your OCD issues. No one really cares; if they did they'd make a separate thread to discuss them properly.

Back on top everybody :thumbsup:

[Old Ape Face]

Unless you are the one editing Wiki...
Think about it this way; you will make mistakes on here again and be called out for them. That goes true for everyone else because as much as people like to think they are above one another (laughable), we are just people.

Take this for example. There are some little 'pups' on here who are recently trying to stir things up with me. I look at their ages and just shake my head in disappointment as I wonder how youth is wasted on such nonsense (they are old enough to have more common sense). It's really nothing to get so riled up about.

You made an inaccurate statement and it happens. It just depends on how you handle the situation.


Well I do find that some articles have no information at all, where others (the real technical ones) Have text books full of information. I would rely on Wikipedia more then just random chit chat on here, it's collective information, most of it is true. It's not exactly scholarly but it does provide fact from one source or another.

I mean the real wise ***** who edit it for fun are true heroes to our society, I don't go on there to edit myself I go on there to learn. Whether I repeat what's written wrong, or if the information from Wikipedia is even wrong at least it gives me some kind of direction as to what's accurate and what's not.

Then again my college has a plethora of sources and articles to refer to. on the website, or at the library I have access to a lot of information.

I don't normally take the time to look through the college sources for any random subject, but I use to have an inquiring mind. In highschool one of my favorite books was in fact the dictionary. It didn't improve my spelling at all but I learned more from the meaning of words then how they actually looked.

In fact I ignored how they looked, it didn't really cross my mind that I would be typing daily on the internet. I was immersed with a High school diploma and a chance to take a degree in Digital Graphic arts.

Yes Wikipedia might be written by random people, some who know everything and some who know nothing at all but it's a source to be corrected by.

And I apologize for bring up my life's story.

[Spadesy]

So the point of the thread is to explain how unreliable Wikipedia...or any source for that matter...can be?

Well thank you for pointing out a fact I knew since middle school.

Not to come off as prickish, but I do get rubbed the wrong way when I use any kind of halfway decent source to show somebody something, or to prove a point, only to have them retort with "well that's not a reliable source/it needs more references/that wasn't written by somebody credible/[insert excuse here]." Alrighty, so where's *your* reference genius?

Common sense would tell me, that although Wikipedia is just as flawed as any other source, it is capable of educating any reader on a multitude of subjects they might otherwise have no clue about.

Seems like "criticizing everything that crosses your eyes" is the new trend these days...just let it go and find something productive to do. Like, I don't know, filling your sink up with water, putting your hand in it, pulling it out, and seeing whether or not your hand is wet? Nothing is a bigger waste of time than symantics.

[waltsoph3]

Hey guys heres something intresting that may happen to wiki soon:

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090126/tc_afp/usitinternetwikipedia

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

Hey guys heres something intresting that may happen to wiki soon:

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090126/tc_afp/usitinternetwikipedia

Ah, so they are finally learning. Although not perfect (but what is?) at least there are some ideas being thrown around.

I'm not sure if I can believe that there are 'trusted users' and even they may be tempted to vandalize entries now and again. I wonder where this is going.

[Old Ape Face]

Ah, so they are finally learning. Although not perfect (but what is?) at least there are some ideas being thrown around.

I'm not sure if I can believe that there are 'trusted users' and even they may be tempted to vandalize entries now and again. I wonder where this is going.

I assume it is mostly people who posses actual source material, since most of the scientific stuff in there is text books of theorized notes, possibly taken from the scientist himself.

meaning, they are turning it into a scholarly information hub.

Misinterpreted information (as this case may actually be) is liable to leek into Wikipedia, given it's nature of allowing anyone to edit whether they actually know the content of not.

Not everyone is mister Lolerfag, trolling the sights just to piss people off.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

I assume it is mostly people who posses actual source material, since most of the scientific stuff in there is text books of theorized notes, possibly taken from the scientist himself.

meaning, they are turning it into a scholarly information hub.

Misinterpreted information (as this case may actually be) is liable to leek into Wikipedia, given it's nature of allowing anyone to edit whether they actually know the content of not.

Not everyone is mister Lolerfag, trolling the sights just to piss people off.

As long as the stuff has a credible cited bibliography, it's all good. It shows that the information was made up. But then there are things that seem to have connotations and therefore no tangible citation. Internet phrases and the like are an example of this. They are so commonly used that is has become a common occurrence.

I would hope that they come up with something to better preserve the accuracy of information as there are too many people who use Wiki as a viable source of information.

[Old Ape Face]

As long as the stuff has a credible cited bibliography, it's all good. It shows that the information was made up. But then there are things that seem to have connotations and therefore no tangible citation. Internet phrases and the like are an example of this. They are so commonly used that is has become a common occurrence.

I would hope that they come up with something to better preserve the accuracy of information as there are too many people who use Wiki as a viable source of information.

It is definitely not a college worthy source for information (to a scholarly stand point), a scholarly source would be information taken directly from the people who work with it. This kind of information is usually locked up in college libraries, or pass protected websites hosted by .gov, .edu extensions. There is a massive database for everything you want to know about anything somewhere on the internet. It's not a Wikipedia site, it is what I've said as a strict vault of information.

I don't know it, I heard about it referenced by Rush Limbua on his radio show.

If Wikipedia were to become such a scholarly source for information, the owner would only allow access to the editing portion to people who work with the information.

[Leader Desslock]

I don't know it, I heard about it referenced by Rush Limbua on his radio show.
Well, since you heard it from such a reliable source, it must be true... :rolleyes:

[Old Ape Face]

Well, since you heard it from such a reliable source, it must be true... :rolleyes:

I trust Rush... he's a counter measure to the liberal democratic side in the TV news.

[KabukiSaMuRaI]

It is definitely not a college worthy source for information (to a scholarly stand point), a scholarly source would be information taken directly from the people who work with it. This kind of information is usually locked up in college libraries, or pass protected websites hosted by .gov, .edu extensions. There is a massive database for everything you want to know about anything somewhere on the internet. It's not a Wikipedia site, it is what I've said as a strict vault of information.

If Wikipedia were to become such a scholarly source for information, the owner would only allow access to the editing portion to people who work with the information.
Certain entries may not be up to the standards of other comparable subjects in the world of academia but I'm sure there are those students who try to take the easy way out, unfortunately. Whether or not it be scholarly information, it is information that could potentially be used by anyone with Internet access.

The sites that are handled by universities or other education based facilities represent viable sources of information. The strict standards (I would hope) and the editing procedures, the measures taken to ensure the information is updated daily would constitute a good, credible source of information, whether for the purpose of academics or for want of general information. I've no doubt there is a database out there and some of us have probably perused those documents at our libraries and computers.

The government sites have good information but there are those that would argue about conspiracy theories. Let's not go there.
I trust Rush... he's a counter measure to the liberal democratic side in the TV news.
I've no doubt he has a loyal following.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Are they ever going to fix the fact the average age of wiki admin is 17.

[Leader Desslock]

^ Probably, but that will mean that the average age of a Wiki admin will be 15.

[Old Ape Face]

So then the Founder of Wikipedia must be 12 years old.