Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Murph at 2009-01-22 00:49:21

Conservationist said

[orig][quote]

Murph said	[orig][quote]
These citations (the sources, not Wiki itself), along with the external links can be extremely helpful when writing a paper because of the breadth of information that can be added from anyone from scholarly to amateur fact-checkers and historians.

Wikipedia is 100% plagiarized and paraphrased. There are better sources to find on all important topics. The school's right by cutting out the lazy bibliography site!

I don't see how that is constructive at all.

Of course there are better sources, they're called first-hand accounts. Even libraries, filled with books, which, unless subject to misprint, are the most trusted tangibles to finding exactly what is said, what is meant, and by whom.

That is not relevant, however, as many of these SOURCES are the ones CITED on WIKIPEDIA, which means by proxy that WIKI CAN BE USEFUL, my original point.

You're not a conservationist, you're an idealist.

Oh, and guess what else are 100% plagiarized and paraphrased? Research(ed) papers.

Now go find some obscure articles about how everyone is wrong and you're right, so you can play preservationist.

[default homepage]

[print][

1:56:00pm May 01,2024
load time 0.00782 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]