Why are teachers always hating on wikipedia?
My aunt is a college professor and she alsways tells me that anybody can put false information in it but i use it anyway becuase its easy=]
Can I type something in Wikipedia's MediaWiki language and see the final results live?
There are some options which allow something like this. The editing preferences panel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp... has something called Live-Preview. If you enable that then you will see a preview of the page at the same time as the edit window. Normally you need to press the preview button to get the preview to regenerate.I have briefly used a script which auto loaded the live preview on each keystroke, on the English wikipedia addmw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheDJ/ActualLivePreview.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');to your common.js or vector.js files. If your are on another wiki you would need to copy that script to your local wiki.I found the script to be a bit laggy on a slowish connection so turned it off.
Does wikipedia tell the truth?
Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia which anyone with an account can edit. This lets the website grow exponentially and gives users the opportunity to express their knowledge of a particular topic. The downside is that sometimes people abuse the system and add erroneous listing. Once these posts are found, they are quickly deleted. I would always follow the links provided at the bottom of the page. Luck 2 you.
Why am i too lazy to read Wikipedia?
Sometimes i search for things on Wikipedia and i normally don’t read everything and if it’s something i don’t care about i don’t read nothing. Instead i be a coward and smoke my cigarettes.
How do I find out who originally created a Wikipedia page?
SOURCE: WikipediaA Wikipedia page history shows the order in which changes were made to any editable Wikipedia page, the difference between any two versions, and a menu of special external tools. A page history is sometimes called revision history or edit history.The page history contains a list of the page's previous revisions, including the date and time—in UTC by default—of each edit, the username or IP address of the user who made the change, and an optional edit summary that briefly describes or explains the change. For example, the page history for this help page shows that it was first created on September 20, 2004, and that it has been changed more than 500 times during the last fourteen years.
How should I respond when someone says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source?
Wikipedia has a bad rap in academia and is a tertiary source, so it makes good sense to not cite it in an academic paper. But that doesn’t mean it’s not reliable.Reputable sources =/= credible or reliable sourcesOne of the world's top scientific journals, Nature, did a study that found that Wikipedia's reliability measured comparably to Encyclopedia Britannica, which is considered a gold standard for reliability. I think this is awesome. So Wikipedia is demonstrably reliable. In fact compared to the sorts of sources an educator would generally prefer — state-endorsed textbooks, Purdue OWL-approved sources like TIME[1] (see below), etc. — I’d bet it sits near the topmost echelon of reliability.Reputable sources bring with them good ethos, although they aren’t necessarily reliable, even though you could cite them in a paper. In my experience you can typically find a view or headline to match any given opinion or a verifiable error in some reputable source (see below). Fortunately, Wikipedia frequently uses high-quality sources, so you can follow through their citations and cite those in a paper. Generally, try not to rely too much on any one source, but see how things fit against multiple pieces of evidence and if they make sense.Feel free to ask said person what constitutes a reliable source for them and look for examples of errors from said source and how they stack up. Most of the time I’d bet on Wikipedia because it’s proven exceptionally reliable to me, even though it’s not very reputable.How Hillary Clinton Is Going to Win Today by TIME MagazineFootnotes[1] APA Formatting and Style Guide
Why is Wikipedia not a valid source?
Wikipedia should not be used as a cited source for two very good reasons: 1. It is not peer reviewed before publication. Especially including the fact that most people can edit, this is a major problem. Even if it got everything right all of the time (excepting vandalism), your teachers still wouldn't be happy with it in this sense. 2. It's a tertiary source. In college-level research, you should be using more direct resources—encyclopedias don't cut it. Wikipedia's often good, and there's a trick for using it—look for the citations that Wikipedia uses, and track down those sources. Those sources will generally be reliable and relevant… and therefore useful for citation.
How reliable is Wikipedia as a source of information, and why?
(This answer was written in response to an earlier version of the question)Evaluating the accuracy of a Wikipedia article is a lot of work, if you want to do it right, but here's what it would involve. Pick the article. Find the most authoritative secondary and tertiary sources on that same topic. Read and correctly understand these sources. Evaluate how what you have learned differs from the content of the Wikipedia article. Try to figure out cause for the discrepancies, by examining the sources cited in the Wikipedia article. You will probably find that the article was pretty good, but with some weakness. After you have done all this work, you will be in a very good position to improve the article yourself. (As an aside, I disagree with the premise of the question. For many purposes, Wikipedia is not only a good source of information, it's the best that has ever existed. It's not a "serious avenue for academic research", but then neither is any encyclopedia)