/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9688004]

>A wikipedia article doesn't count, buddy

[Anonymous No.9688005]

>wikipedia
anyone can edit that

[Anonymous No.9688007]

>>9688005
>anyone can edit that

[Anonymous No.9688021]

I actually like wikipedia. It's nice for quick references.

[Anonymous No.9688032]

>I actually like wikipedia. It's nice for quick references.

[Anonymous No.9688034]

>>9688004

[Anonymous No.9688114]

>>9688005
And anyone can check the history to see if what is being argued over has been recently changed or check the sources to see if it matches the sources for the information.

Of course, no one does either of those.

[Anonymous No.9688138]

>>9688114
Looks like we have a butthurt Wikipedia scholar.

Pleb, I have literally edited two pages without checking the history and my edits have stuck.

And they're big pages too.

[Anonymous No.9688144]

>>9688034
>this is actually real

[Anonymous No.9688148]

>>9688138
That wasn't my point. The point is that if someone used that article in an argument I could check the history to see if something has been recently changed to add weight to his argument, or if there were any changes that reversed what should be factual information.

[Anonymous No.9688256]

>>9688032
>>I actually like wikipedia. It's nice for quick references.

[Anonymous No.9690053]

>>9688004
I remember a quote from a youtube video once.
"Wikipedia is where research starts, never where it ends."

[Anonymous No.9690057]

But that's true you stupid. Wikipedia isn't a source; it's a portal that cites its sources. You can literally just look at the end of the article and you'll see where the wiki info comes from.

You're welcome, high schooler. Welcome to the Internet, by the way.

[Anonymous No.9690238]

>>9688005
They literally cannot edit at will.

[Anonymous No.9690417]

>look up wikipedia article
>check exact source for claim
>nothing said about claim in source
How does that even happen?

[Anonymous No.9690507]

I use wikipedia as a gateway, seldom use what the article itsself says but the sources instead, helps with quick research

[Anonymous No.9690571]

>>9690417
>nothing said about claim in source
That's where you as an editor step in and question / fix it.

Wikipedia is a participatory resource. If you want to read passively, then you get what you paid for.

[Anonymous No.9690607]

>>9688004
These Wojaks are getting really strange.

[Anonymous No.9690617]

>>9690607
>these wokajs are getting really strange

[Anonymous No.9692600]

>>9688007
Right, only leftists with special permission get to edit wikipedia these days.