But www.wikipedia.com can be great IF the information is cited.
Throwing it out the window simply because anybody could edit it is ridiculous. If it's cited, then it's perfectly viable. [ roflswine's advice column | Ask roflswine A Question ]
XoXoXoXo77 answered Monday February 11 2008, 12:06 am: dont listen to the person below me. wikipedia sucks, anyone can post information on it which means that it's not a reliable source. the teachers at my school don't allow the students to use it.
use google: google.com
use dogpile: dogpile.com
use yahoo: yahoo.com
use ask: ask.com
yeah that's pretty much all you need. i like google the best.
-:-
XoXoXoXo77, anyone can also create a website and get it to appear on Google. But unlike most of those websites, Wikipedia cites verifiable sources.
When you use on a site found on Google, you are relying on a single person; a single point of failure. When you use Wikipedia, you are relying on the collective efforts of thousands of contributors.
-:- [ theymos's advice column | Ask theymos A Question ]
Attention: NOTHING on this site may be reproduced in any fashion whatsoever without explicit consent (in writing) of the owner of said material, unless otherwise stated on the page where the content originated. Search engines are free to index and cache our content. Users who post their account names or personal information in their questions have no expectation of privacy beyond that point for anything they disclose. Questions are otherwise considered anonymous to the general public.