Goatboy wrote:And speaking of Wikipedia, some people are still under the delusion that anyone can edit an article to say whatever they want and it will go unnoticed and stay that way.
The truth is, the Internet is limited by society. I think Tim Minchin said it best:
"Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you, frighten you?"
That reminded me of some words I had with an instructor back during school over using wikipedia as a source. Very rough transcript:
Instructor: You shouldn't use wikipedia, it's not a reputable source.
Me: Why's that?
Instructor: instead, you should go to the articles cited by wikipedia and cite them directly
Me: I see your point but in the cases of this paper I verified the original sources were used accurately in Wikipedia
Instructor: Yes, but it's still an academic consensus that wikipedia isn't accurate
Me: Those scholars know they can easily correct inaccuracies, don't they?
Instructor: Well yes, but most scholars use a real encyclopedia like Britannica
Me: I checked there but there were no articles for me to use. Plus I can't afford it.
Instructor: Alright, well next time just go to the library and use Britannica.
Me: Fine by me, would you care showing me one of Wikipedia's inaccuracies?
He proceeded to try but failed miserably. Still marked me down for doing that, I ended up with I think a C in the class because I refused to stop citing wikipedia.
Here's a comparison chart for why wikipedia owns the shit out of feeble competitors:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASize_comparisons#Comparison_of_encyclopedias
And this too http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
, all the while boasting 60 times the articles!
"I'm going to get into your sister. I'm going to get my hands on your daughter."