SMBC Comics Forum

I would complain about Wookieepedia, but I am too enamored with the name.

Edminster wrote:For the same reason we have Wookiepedia.

NOOOOO. Just no. I quit the internet.

Or the MSPA wiki. It's quite detailed.

I remember a time when teachers thought of wikipedia as a valid source. I remember a teacher discovering it and saying how great it was. I remember how it wasn't always the first search result on google for mostly anything.

And I wouldn't complain about it being called bulbapedia as much as I would that the address is http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki because that's a pain to remember. Yeah you can just type b and it comes up, but what about before?

Apocalyptus wrote:

AHMETxRock wrote:Pokemon supposedly have "groups" that they can mate with for eggs.

Why universe, why is it necessary for something called the bulbapedia to exist?

For people like me.

I'm ready for poke-flaming.

AHMETxRock wrote:I remember a time when teachers thought of wikipedia as a valid source. I remember a teacher discovering it and saying how great it was. I remember how it wasn't always the first search result on google for mostly anything.

Most of my profs love wikipedia, and I've had a couple strongly suggest it's a good beginning point for an essay if you're trying to get a basic understanding of your subject before starting. It's just not peer reviewed.

I love wiki for recreational research. When you just want to learn something, it is consistently concise and informative. And when you want to do legitimate research, you can go straight for the sources and find out whether the information is totally valid. Wikipedia is a fine source if you make sure the article in question is sourced to sources that are proper and resourceful.

It isn't useful for physics or mathematics, though. It's written at the highest level of understanding, so is very unhelpful to the reader.

That's where simple.wikipedia.org comes in handy.

It don't have no article on SMBC; I ain't interested in it.


Does redneck talk work with semi-colons included? I'm not entirely sure.

Rainbow wrote:I love wiki for recreational research. When you just want to learn something, it is consistently concise and informative. And when you want to do legitimate research, you can go straight for the sources and find out whether the information is totally valid. Wikipedia is a fine source if you make sure the article in question is sourced to sources that are proper and resourceful.

To be fair, you're not actually allowed to use Wikipedia as a source for a university paper (for history at least) because it's not peer reviewed. It is still a good starting point though, and if it's for high school, so long as you have other sources, I'm sure most teachers would allow it.

Generally if its on wikipedia there is a source listed on the bottom that you can use.



fuck you spell check, I'm not capitalizing wikipedia.

*whisper* You're allowed to swear on the internet, Snarky.

Also, you used the wrong blue.

Ruo's handy guide to invisitext:
quotes: EBEADD
dark blue: E1EBF2
light blue: ECF3F7

For the record, my high school did not allow wikipedia once everyone started using it as a source.

Personally I plan to be an evil history teacher and teach my students the difference between proper sources and not so proper sources. And not just for online sources too, but articles and books too.