Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 26 2007, 1:13 AM EDT (current) | Anonymous | 183 words added, 135 words deleted, 1 photo deleted |
| Jun 26 2007, 1:09 AM EDT | Anonymous |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
BeThis honestis Ivery dointeresting notand carenew wetherfor itme to know that Wikipedia is reliablebased oron the not.concept Iof doopen notsource and participatory journalism. I’ve always used to enter “wikipedia” in the search informationoption thatof ismy reliableYahoo! forin meorder byto online.find But,the suremain iwaswell-known gatheringfacts someabout somebody or something. I have never doubted the reliability of the information fromI wikipedialooked relatedthrough. toBut, myhomeif assignmentsu atenter KIMEPthe ,site and iread canit saymore thatcarefully, theyyou werereliable,will see ithese meanwords: “Welcome ito gotWikipedia the exactfree infoencyclopedia that ianyone can edit. Now need.how can we trust this Andsource? I heardusually alotdo, aboutwhen WikipediaI fromneed othersomething peoplereally andfast, theybut allI aresatisfiedam sure bythat it’sI sources.will Howevernever thereuse isthis asource onefor minus,serious itprojects isveryand reasonableresearch. thatMore over nowadays majority of teachers, and professors 15prohibit their students fromto use this 30source as a reference in classtheir (papers. example)willSo bringI thecan sameconclude assignment,that butthis fromsource otheris handvery icomfortable don’tthinkto thatuse, itbut not 100% dependsreliable. But, on the source,other ithand, some dependprofessors howdo personnot is searching.Inprohibit thebut endeven iencourage wantstudents to sayuse thatWiki source, as Wikipedia isuntrustworthy veryhelps verystudents popularsourceto especiallydevelop forcritical students,thinking soskills. where“You isneed theto demandbe theircarefull isaabout trusting supply,all that isn’tyou it?read”
Natasha S.
Natasha S.
