<p>Well my teachers hate wikipedia for example my biology teacher gave us a final assignment and she said do not use wikipedia or your getting a zero and then my summer assignment for Ap art history in big bold letters it says no wikipedia and it got me thinking how do you feel about wikipedia?</p>
<p>I did a test with Wikipedia where I changed some information to inaccurate information. I went back an hour later and the change I made was not there. I mean, if there is inaccurate information it is generally caught and changed back.</p>
<p>I find Wikipedia pretty dang accurate. In fact, I was watching this lecture before and a professor said that he thought Wikipedia was a fairly reliable source.</p>
<p>I think the reasons why teachers really don’t like it is because you can copy and past then edit the original page so it doesn’t look like you copied it. And the only person who does that is an idiot who deserves a zero because Turn It In and other things cache these pages.</p>
<p>I say this, but I would never use Wikipedia as a source to anything.
(I read it to get ideas of what to look for)</p>
<p>Wikipedia is an awesome place to find sources, when articles are properly cited that is.</p>
<p>I love Wikipedia. Teachers hate it though haha…</p>
<p>I use wiki as long as there are cited sources. I then go to the cited sources to check if they’re legit. It saves me a lot of time when researching.</p>
<p>I’ve had “don’t use Wikipedia” in the past, but in this home stretch (senior year), no one really cares.</p>
<p>Most of my teachers’ assignments that involve research don’t even ask for sources this year. They just want you to right a little report–aka make a powerpoint–and present it.</p>
<p>Then you get an A. </p>
<p>-shrug- </p>
<p>My Junior teachers cared. My senior teachers don’t.</p>
<p>Nobody actually cites Wikipedia though. That’s a pretty dumb move.</p>
<p>Well, we’re not supposed to, but I do anyway. It’s useful for getting the general overview of a topic. I don’t use it for school that often, but when I do, I just list the cited sources at the bottom of a page.</p>
<p>I use Wikipedia quite a lot for information about TV shows, random bits of information that I wish I knew, etc.</p>
<p>as long as its on wikipedia, I just assume it to be background information or common knowledge</p>
<p>Most teachers don’t like people to use Wikipedia. This is because the teacher is pretty ignorant to that fact that most if not all things on it are backed up with sources. What drives teachers away is that it can be edited by anyone.</p>
<p>Random junk changes would be fixed within minutes of it being changed.</p>
<p>Don’t use wikipedia. Instead, use the articles cited within the wikipedia article.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is great for biology background research, I think, especially when you just want to get a general idea of any topic.</p>
<p>It’s not any less accurate than any other encyclopedia, in my opinion. The community surrounding it is very good at catching errors and keeping the pages truthful. Anyway, most of my teachers make us cite the original source- so no encyclopedias period.</p>
<p>wikipedia is just misunderstood… but the truth is that most inaccurate info on wikipedia is corrected within only a matter of minutes… teachers don’t get that the main reason most people like wikipedia is because everything is so organized! Unfortunately we aren’t allowed to use it at my school :(</p>
<p>haha my teachers don’t give a **** if we use wikipedia. It’s fine as long as we cite it properly (:</p>
<p>I use Wikipedia all the time for research - English teachers hate it, but most other teachers wholeheartedly recommend using any articles that don’t have that problem box that the top of bad pages. Just as long as you cite it properly, it’s cool. And most of the time I use information that’s cited from another source, so I don’t really “use” Wikipedia.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is fine and legit. seriously. Teachers won’t admit it because they know it’s an easy tool for us procrastinators. oh and I once messed around the college confidential page and after awhile the changes were restored so yeah we really have no control over it.</p>
<p>^ Haha, like the time someone Mapleleafs was a legend or something and it was removed. -.-</p>
<p>^ That sort of spamming should not be tolerated :|</p>
<p>I’ve never used it for a “real” class, only for World History, to double check information that I had done legit library research on years ago. APWH is utter stupidity around here. I wouldn’t have spent a minute devoting myself to study because my teacher couldn’t bother to do the students the same measure of courtesy. However, for real classes, I would never (other than for images).
WP is a fantastic source though. I used to spend a good bit of time editing, mostly on the Sorrows of Young Werther article, I think. My WH book actually listed a few articles as sources, and I held it in higher regard than I did my teacher. Some surveys have shown that the average featured WP article contains fewer errors than the average Encyclopaedia Britannica one. There are users who patrol Recent Changes, preventing any serious vandalism from lasting too long, and most controversial articles are locked from edits by unregistered and new users. (There is a growing movement within WP to completely ban anonymous users, but it’ll likely never take hold, on account of Jimbo’s ideas for his creation). Nevertheless, I do consider it to be more of a mega compendium than an encyclopedia, and think that, if it is to be considered the latter, its editors should follow more strictly [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N]WP:N[/url”>Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia]WP:N[/url</a>], or perhaps have a more stringent definition of notability. Just, check the article’s rating before you use it (Featured is always fine, as is Good, usually), and probably cite its sources rather than the article itself.</p>
<p>If I don’t have to cite sources, Wikipedia is pretty much my primary source. If I have to cite sources, I look at the citations and external links and cite those. I think that the accuracy of Wikipedia is pretty good for most subjects, especially science, math, and geography.</p>
<p>I just earned my MLS (Library Science) degree. We are taught that Wikipedia is “not reliable” as a source.</p>
<p>[I</a> personally disagree.](<a href=“http://susanrb.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2009/09/15/wikipedia-food-for-thought/]I”>http://susanrb.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2009/09/15/wikipedia-food-for-thought/)</p>
<p>Randy Pausch (The Last Lecture) was asked to write an article for World Book on his area of expertise. He was appalled when no one even bothered to verify anything he wrote, and simply included it in the encyclopedia.</p>
<p>[Randy</a> Pausch on the World Book Encyclopedia and Wikipedia ~ Moving to Freedom](<a href=“http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2008/06/21/randy-pausch-on-the-world-book-encyclopedia-and-wikipedia/]Randy”>Randy Pausch on the World Book Encyclopedia and Wikipedia ~ Moving to Freedom)</p>
<p>-sorry I just noticed this is the high school board (I was on new posts). please forgive my intrusion.</p>