Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MikefromOhio
Some things which are less controversial than others are generally more accurate than say an article about Condi Rice would be.

Agreed. I use Wikipedia for subjects that do not involve any emotion. People are unlikely to lie about programming languages or obscure tv shows from the 70s or stuff like that. I never assume that wikipedia is correct, but occasionally use it as a starting point.

22 posted on 08/31/2006 9:26:08 AM PDT by Kaylee Frye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Kaylee Frye

I had to write a short paper on something in my Western Civ class. I can't remember what it was right off of the top of my head, but Wikipedia had more detailed info on it than my textbook did.

I hadn't bought the stupid flyer booklet yet that the professor put together for the class, so I went almost exclusively from Wikipedia.

I got an A too :). This guy never gives A's either.

It was accurate there at least.


23 posted on 08/31/2006 9:28:05 AM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Go Bucks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Kaylee Frye
I use Wikipedia for subjects that do not involve any emotion.

If you cannot get emotional about Bayes Theorem better put a mirror to your nose. A truly wonderful treatment.

28 posted on 08/31/2006 10:33:09 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson