Half of the questions I answer I just copy and paste a page from wikipedia. Is that wrong? It usually gets me the best answer, and wikipedia a GNU, which means there is no copyright.
128477
because people are lazy these days & its just easier to type it in then to research it.  do i get 10 pts?
310053
The content at Wikipedia is licensed for free distribution.  Answers.com uses the content from Wikipedia on their site under this license.\n\nThe information on Yahoo! Answers comes from the members of the Answers community.  Some of them use Wikipedia and Answers.com to do research or to support their answers.
454420
Simply remove the what and the question mark and your answer will be revealed . The original , in most cases is always the best because follow up version must adhere to strict regulations on copyright infringement and if a corporation " knows " it has a winner then they are going to claim as many areas of the product as they can legally . This presents a problem for the alter - ego products because of design , color . material ...etc and therefore , the product isn't as reliable.
289717
I am now finishing with my name as my own work.\ncut and paste should be kept to a minimum, preferably only when it's a technical term or reply, and definitely not pages upon pages from the Bible.\nMaster.
51965
I am assuming that they stole your copyrighted content and design as opposed to stealing your domain name by altering DNS. In this case I think you are somewhat defenseless except to rewrite your website bigger and better.
264264
I don't know as if you can register (copyright) a "quote" as such. Quotations are usually derived from books, poems, songs, essays, articles and the like, all of which *can* be copyrighted by the writer.
62948
Google, or better, a library. But make sure it is a legit source and that you follow MLA guidelines in citing the source.
536991
Yes. You cannot include copyrighted material in even a Freeware. Just imagine: if you can doit than actually anybody can generate a freeware from any copyrighted material and distribute it freely.It would be the end of copyright.
351774
Hey I totally agree with you. As a university student I feel that wikipedia is a source that should never be trusted. I like to stick with academic journals since they have always been looked over by the right people and the information in them is always perfect. They fact that people can manipulate a source of information to their own understandings should always be considered a useless source for information.\n\nAnother thing. I see a couple of remarks about there never being books in the library. Well since we are in a new age of information this is were online academic journals have replaced books. You can find them on google and your university's library website. Wikipedia should never be considered as a helpful secondary resource especially for papers in the academic setting.\nCheers
100744
If I understand correctly, I think they come from Yahoo, so you're out of luck.\n\nYou could set up a bookmark directly to http://answers.yahoo.com and bypass it.
51740
If you are talking about finishing a stub , just finish it. But if you are talking about starting a whole new wiki, i dont think wikipedia is going to spit ou the script, so try bulbapedia's maker, they might. other wise, id try forums.
603217
Might sometimes be helpful to answer a really tough Q but c'mon any monkey can hit a website for an answer.  I personally try to answer them from my own knowledge.  It's kind of like going onto Jeapordy and bringing a whole stack of encyclopedias with you.
677248
that is the problem with Wikipedia.. it's obviously not tamper proof...
42906
wikipedia has alot of stuff on it.
405121
www.wikipedia.org and stop spamming questions :P
98585
Well plagiarism is a huge reason. You can't steal another persons' ideas and use them as your own. Also, another reason would be to give credit to the source where you got your info. Sorry, I don't know a third one....:( \n(Exactly what the guy above me said)
204090
I am almost always disappointed when Wikipedia is used by my students as a source in an academic paper, and I generally warn my students against using it.  I agree with the person above who wrote that wiki articles often include basic bibliographies that can lead students to more useful sources, but in many cases, the information to be found on Wikipedia is less than satisfying.\n\nFor example, one student of mine used the wiki entry on "cargo cults," and the information he found there was misleading, and certainly not reflective of current scholarship on the subject.  Because Wikipedia is an online source that is updated often, my student thought that the information it contained would be "cutting edge."  This was a bad assumption to make.  We ended up using it in class discussion as an instructive example of the problems with Wikipedia.\n\nAcademia runs on the principle of peer review.  This means that everything a scholar attempts to publish is reviewed for integrity and quality by recognized reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the field.  The basic problem with Wikipedia is the absence of a uniform, reliable, standardized peer review process.  In other words, the "policing" is insufficient, because Wikipedia articles are not reviewed by recognized experts in the fields in question. \n\nOne final note:\nWhy don't more scholars contribute to Wikipedia themselves and make it a better site?  Well, in some cases they actually do, for the sake of students who might consult the site, but in most cases, they don't, because it wouldn't "count" as a valid publication effort, because it's not a standard, peer-reviewed endeavor!\n\n(Sorry for the length of this response, but I thought it was an important question that deserved a thoughtful reply.)