Originally Posted by
sherwood
[spoiler=read this for my wiki rebutal]
I don't even believe you've been to Wikipedia, or used it's resources. I find that most factual errors are fixed within a few days time, and that vandalism is usualy fixed within the hour, if not seconds after it is posted.
If you can't tell the difference of what is written by a 12 year old and what is written by people who know what they are talking about you are in need of a better education.
I wouldn't quote wikipedia in my thesis, or in a major work. I feel that it isn't reliable for these sorts of things because many of the articles change, not that the information changes all that much, but a direct quote may not be there in a month or two. Also there is no real author, so no one can be held accountable if the information is wrong.
In reality Wikipedia has about the same ammount of factual errors as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Anyone who says that the information is flawed just doesnt understand the system and how it works. The more views a page gets the better the information in it gets, so it takes a while for things to be shaped into something worth reading. Of course something that only gets one or two views a day is going to be flawed, just because it hasnt been formed into useful information yet, it will, it just takes longer.
I also hold the ability of Wikipedia's system to fix these errors in high regard. Errors are fixed automatically by the will of hundreds of thousands of visitors a day. I dare you to go into one of the more major articles and vandalize it without it getting fixed or reverted within the next 10 minutes.
So regardless of what your teachers tell you Wikipedia is a good source of information, it's just not a sound foundation for anything academic as there is no accountability. But as long as these risks are taken into consideration, and the articles read with a grain of salt, there are very few major errors that prevent one from getting the desired information.
[/spoiler]
I hold what i said to be true. The prelude was a sporty coupe, not a sports car.
^^^ That is merely your opinion, where are your facts?
Well you're wrong, period. Who are you to set the rules for what is a sports car and what is not? A prelude is a sports car, period. Look at the insurance rates, body style, dimensions, gearing, engine, suspension, etc etc...
Where is it set in stone that a sports car MUST be rear-wheel drive? It doesn't, look at any AWD car... What about a Lambo or a Porsche? Obviously these are sports cars, yet they have AWD...
And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I can agree with you that it has alot of good information, but it CANNOT be used for factual information....
For example, maybe U don't know what hypereutectic alloy pistons are, then go to wikipedia. But if you want to know the exact amounts of silicon that are added to the aluminum alloy then don't go to wikipedia, get it?
Believe me, I have an education, and I can tell the difference between a 12 year old and you for example, but I was making a point.
You are arguing that it is acceptable to state as fact what you find on wikipedia, yet you say yourself that you wouldn't use it in a thesis. Exactly my point. If it can't be used in Acadamia then it's probably FALSE, LOL...