I stopped using wikipedia on my papers after a professor made a comment that wikipedia, while being full of useful information, can not be considered reliable information, because of the variance of its authors and its constantly changing nature.  It is an organic work, written by whoever wants to write, policed by a community of people from many different fields.  Do you think it is appropriate for use in academic writing?
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.)
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.
266797
As a university student, I can tell you that at least professors in general will look down on using that as a source of academic info, although some secondary educators may differ on this point. The problem with it is that anyone can submit an article and be published. It is not peer-reviewed either, so the info may not be completely accurate or up-to-date. For a good source of info regarding encyclopedias, consult one that features articles written by experts in their respective fields, those who have solid credentials like PhDs, MDs, etc. Remember that, individually, opinions will vary from teacher to teacher about this topic, though.
654511
I think wikiment sounds too much like wikipedia.
275573
You can if you want.  It's weird, though.  I'd keep it in casual conversation and out of scholarly papers and the like.
420924
The writer comes to a conclusion without using the first person. You should be trying to sway the reader to your belief on the topic. A well written paper will give information from both sides, but dispute the opposition with facts. You as the writer want the reader to come to his or her own conclusion at the end.
121461
I agree that the whole category of Education & Reference is being misused by many students. You can easily tell that the question is directly from their homework (they even include the question number!). I'm happy to help them get started with some questions, but will not do all the work for them. I also refuse to answer if they ask multiple questions--either in the same question, or several different questions. And I do worry about the future of the next generation since obviously so many of them aren't reading their assignments before trying to finish the homework. In my day, asking someone to do your homework for you was considered cheating--a serious offense that got you a failing grade in the class.
504435
IN TEXT - I would say "according to wikipedia's article about _______".  \n\nThere is a way to cite down at the bottom of every page on wikipedia for your bibliography. \n\nI hope I answered your question, but I was a bit unclear. \nGood luck!\n\nYou might check out the MLA handbook for references to citing as well.
215850
They are really quality answers. Very well written, to the point and informative. However, just some things you might want to keep in mind... answers like the hypothesis one or red pony were i think answered in a way best suited to Yahoo Answers. But for example you included one of your papers along with the professor's name, course number, etc. etc.... i would not want to include an entire paper of mine in which i had put in so much time and effort, on a site like this. other's might plagiarize even without meaning to do so, and it is best to give them pointers or general comments rather than sharing your entire work. But that's just my opinion, you may feel comfortable sharing it. If I were you, i would keep some of my really good ideas to myself rather than divulging everything... because in the world of academics, original ideas count.
623499
People who do not re-read what they have written really should.  I do it every single time. Not only to be curteous to the person who asked the question, but it is also a good habit to practice. It is obvious that many people that answer/ask questions on here do not do that, and they end up looking really idiotic.
567859
Generally, if there is no author, you should use the title of the document.  In-text citations are a way to make it easier for a reader to find the full citation in the Works Cited page(s).  Therefore, you need to include information in an in-text citation which will make it easy for a reader to find the full citation entry at the end of the essay.\n\nThe "MLA Handbook" is a VERY USEFUL tool.  They have a website as well, and this is the url to the page that may contain a more specific answer to your question: http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/online/cite5.html
521598
If this is an opinion based question, then my answer is yes, and no. Yes in that computers make people lazy (by using spell check,  abbreviations, etc.), and no in that people are free to choose to self-edit their own material (I did not spell check this, so I hope it meets with grammatical correctness guidelines). I do not believe that most people who own computers still know how to write a gramatically correct sentence or paragraph.
518217
I agree. This should be like a living encyclopedia, where people contribute their knowledge, but it isn't. There are a whole load of questions that should not be allowed. Here are some types that I have been daft enought to answer within the last week:-\n1 Too lazy to do own homework e.g. "Visit a Maxican community and write your observation? why do like this community?"\n2. Jokes e.g. "Clairvoyants: I would like to send you a cheque for £1,000. Could you please mail your name and address to me?"\n3. Too lazy to do an internet search e.g. "Does anyone know anything about Christine De Pisan?"\n4. Impossible to know e.g. "How many people own alarm clocks in the U.S.?"\n5. Inadequate detail e.g. "Is there an underground tunnel at excelsior high school?"\n6. Feedback grumbles e.g. "Thanks for the answer on Irish Clubs!! I am english - my husband is irish thankyou.We socialise with ALL!!?"\n7. Useless trivia e.g. "What is the correct Ibo/Igbo translation of, 'Throw him'?"\n8. Self-publicism e.g. Does anyone know who jonathon c mclachlan is?\n\nSometimes a member of the Answers Team bothers to read some of the postings. I just hope that one of them reads this, and comes up with a suggestion for improving Yahoo! Answers.
399268
G'day Graphix,\n\nThank you for your question.\n\nI am an active participant and admin on Wikipedia. One of the most important issues is verifiabiility and ensuring we have sources for everything in the articles. It is improving although we have a far bit of work to go.\n\nThe other issue is developing stable articles so that visitors see articles without vandalism. I understand that the boffins are working on that as we speak.\n\nI will be interested to see what others have to add.\n\nRegards
227405
All works on wikipedia are distributed under GNU Free Documentation License.[1]\nThis means that it is OK to copy ANYTHING from wikipedia if it the derived work will be distributed under similarly free license.\nThis is known as "copy left"\nSince Yahoo is not claiming copyright to any of the answers [2] it is not a violation of any laws, if the answerer agrees to license his answer under GFDL as well.\nSo Wikipedia is fine, however copying from other websites might be a copyright infringement.
671863
Ask yourself why you suddenly want the change from a useful degree to one more abstract? Languages are good to study, as is literature... but how will you feed your children and your future self if your pursue literature? As an academic librarian, I ask this question back to you!
133596
It's good but it's a little confusing.  I am an English major in college and if I was proofreading for a student I would tell them not to use the word "world" twice because it is too plain!  I would use something like "My greatest fear is that the place I helped to create will be consumed with an evil that will surpass the demonic universe that I helped to destroy."\n\nIt's okay to over exaggerate with your writing because it takes the reader way out there and brings them back.  This gives the reader a bigger pitcher!   It allows them to think outside of the box in order to comprehend a simple theme.  \n\nThe key to writing is to keep your audience guessing until the very end.  If you use simple words in complex sentences it will only force the reader to think on the ground level instead of opening their minds and become apart of your thoughts.