Wikipedia

I, too, love Wikipedia. It's flawed in that sometimes conflicting points of view (just have a gander at the lightning-fast changes in political topics) can result in an "edit war," but for the most part, contributors truly have a desire to give you a well-rounded, thorough, and interesting overview of any topic.

Most articles are easily cited as well as a more conventional encyclopedia.

Often times, I'll go there for one topic, and get lost reading link after link to related topics, until I've eventually strayed so far from what I came there for that I forget what I was even doing. Just a few days ago, I went to look up information about The Colbert Report, (one of my favorites) and I somehow ended up reading about the "alternative history" sub-genre of fiction.
 
Winklewil said:
Just a few days ago, I went to look up information about The Colbert Report, (one of my favorites) and I somehow ended up reading about the "alternative history" sub-genre of fiction.
Click to expand...

Harry Turtledove 4tw. His In The Balance series is great, if you like the idea of WWII being interrupted by an alien invasion.
 
One of my professors uses Wikipedia as her lecture notes, except she claims them as her own. She told the class she'd be posting her lecture notes on our online information system thingy. Her lecture notes are word-for-word quoted from Wikipedia. Minus all the links and junk. It's her second year teaching here.

Shes so been found out. Can't wait for course evalutations in this class. :spiteful:
 
I love the site. It's not THE most accurate information, but the versatile topic linking and layout makes up for it.
 
Yeah my english teacher warned me about this site because sometimes people put in information that isn't accurate. A reporter put in false information on purpose just to see if people would catch on. Some things were changed within five minutes but she also said that some of the false information was never changed or changed days later. So she advises us not to use it when it comes to research papers.

But I do find it a fasnating site for it has information on all kinds of things. One time I was looking up information on sonic 2 for sega genesis about the missing song that is in the sound test but not in the game. I googled it and it lead me to wikipedia, which amazed me that they covered games as well. It gave me this long in-depth description about how the song came about and how it was part of a level that was taken out in the final production. It even posted screen shots of that extra level. Very interesting site I must say.
 
Its very good at covering such a broad range of materials that regular text encyclopedias can't hope to accomplish. Additionaly, it is designed perfectly for providing information on current and new topics of the world and society. If you need 100% proof, its not the best. But if you need general information and statistics, its a good first check.
 
Zylia said:
One of my professors uses Wikipedia as her lecture notes, except she claims them as her own. She told the class she'd be posting her lecture notes on our online information system thingy. Her lecture notes are word-for-word quoted from Wikipedia. Minus all the links and junk. It's her second year teaching here.

Shes so been found out. Can't wait for course evalutations in this class. :spiteful:
Click to expand...

This is a common problem with using Wiki for reasearch papers or anything really. There are often times no author list for the information so your teacher very well could be writing those Wiki's or a frequent Wiki editor. If she is copy and pasting them, it is still not *really* plagurism as most of it is general information. Tagging plagurism to general information created on publicly editable websites is tricky. That is why most college level professors tend to exclude it from research and use as a whole.
 
Luckily I am currently beyond writing papers for anything...so this site is purely amusement <3 Which I loooooove :spiteful:
 
Time to play 6 degrees of seperation, wikipedia style.


EDIT - hahah gota love wikipedia...

hehe_wikipedia.jpg
 
Last edited:
^^^^HAHAHAHA^^^^

I liked this:
Other phrases related to making out
  • From baseball, reaching "first base," "second base," "third base," and "home run" is a euphemism or an innuendo for referring to the successive stages of an intimate encounter:
    • First base is usually understood as making out, with second and third considered to be the touching of breasts (at least in a heterosexual couple) and oral sex, respectively. In this case, "making out" is used to mean foreplay, with sexual coitus as the home run.
  • "Frenching," as short for French kissing.
  • "Lip-locking," as a couple engaged in making out looks to be locked at the lips.
  • "Sucking face," as a couple engaged in making out looks as if they are sucking one another's faces. This can be used as a slightly derogatory term, usually to refer to a couple who are making out in full view of someone who would rather not witness it.
  • "Swapping spit," since a kisser can get his saliva in his/her partner's mouth. Again, this can be used derogatorily.
  • "Lip wrestling," since French kissing causes lips to overlap.
  • "Tonsil Hockey"
  • "Tongue Wrestling," when the couple is enjoying it so much they will sometimes wrestle quite literally with their partner's tongue.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top