Isn't it cheap how some people just copy and paste a Wikipedia entry to answer a question?
410117
"Wikipedia languages\nThis is the English language Wikipedia. Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,091,627 articles. Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages:\n\nOver 100,000 articles:\nDeutsch (German) · Español (Spanish) · Français (French) · Italiano (Italian) · 日本語 (Japanese) · Nederlands (Dutch) · Polski (Polish) · Português (Portuguese) · Svenska (Swedish) \nOver 10,000 articles:\nالعربية (Arabic) · Български (Bulgarian) · Català (Catalan) · Česky (Czech) · Dansk (Danish) · Eesti (Estonian) · Esperanto · فارسی (Persian) · Galego (Galician) · עברית (Hebrew) · Hrvatski (Croatian) · Ido · Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) · 한국어 (Korean) · Lietuvių (Lithuanian) · Magyar (Hungarian) · Bahasa Melayu (Malay) · Norsk bokmål (Norwegian) · Norsk nynorsk (Norwegian) · Română (Romanian) · Русский (Russian) · Slovenčina (Slovak) · Slovenščina (Slovenian) · Српски (Serbian) · Suomi (Finnish) · ภาษาไทย (Thai) · Türkçe (Turkish) · Українська (Ukrainian) · 中文 (Chinese) "\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
497060
Not really.  This site isn't meant to be perfect as far as I know - just to give people reasonable answers to their questions.  No one is being graded on their writing here.  People are working quickly and just want to get the message across.  Some of us are more meticulous than others.  Some of us speak and write English a little better than others.  No big deal.  Life is too short to worry about such things.
665856
A simple solution is to just copy and paste it to Word, Notepad, etc.
174024
No joke!  Or just by doing a Google search, for heaven's sake.  Some of them seem like research questions for homework--perhaps the teacher specified that they can't just look it up, and this is a sneaky way of being lazy anyway?\n\nPeople want attention, and even near-anonymous answers are better than nothing?  (You'd think they'd work harder to come up with a clever question if that were the case, though)
847440
Why don't you run it through Wikipedia and do the legwork yourself?
3978
Wikipedia has implemented a structure of trusted moderators that cover subject areas they are relatively familiar with. So it really isn't true that just anyone can edit an entry without a hitch. It is especially hard to do for popular entries. I know my friends have tried to create entries of a 'biography' on themselves. They were legitimate and honest, however they were shortly removed, in part because they didn't have any links which seems to add validity to an entry. \n\nWith that all said, I personally have found it to be a very useful resource. Any Encyclopedia could be accused of being biased an inaccurate, but with Wikipedia it can be discussed, flagged as being biased, and edited for changes all on the fly. \n\nSo all in all, I would say that it is credible enough for most uses. However if you absolutely need a resource that would withstand scrutiny, perhaps you ought to go elsewhere. But the I think that the future is bright for Wikipedia and I hope they continue to grow and progress without being hindered by more lawsuits.
244401
you could do a google search and then just copy someone else's work.  it's what everyone else does...
1134440
it's called google bombing. people made links in their websites and blogs, and encouraged others to make the same links, so when you type failure, liar, whatever, it gives you the link they want you to see.
941225
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.
359776
Well, I'm not to good in all this court stuff and by copying and pasting what a website says will just make you read more (from what I say and what the site says), so here is a website. I'll post it under sources so you just have to click it. :)
225256
Yes, but that would require someone to administer this site, which is clearly not the case.  It's the Wikipedia version of a bulletin board, but without the experts.\n\nOther relevant questions:\n- should a spellchecker be required for submissions?\n- should the same person be allowed to answer the same other person's questions just to get points?\n- should there be a minimum letter/word count for answers to eliminate "yes," "no," and other answers that are only to get points (for whatever reason that is considered beneficial)?
528146
certain questions work well with wikipedia. especially science and factual questions. but questions revolving around politics, emotions, life, etc. should be answered by ourselves.
574237
I agree, many of the answers sought here could easily be found by using Google or some other search engine (probably more factual answers too).  What really slays me is these people who look up an answer and cut and paste it in (probably without even reading it).
28684
Wikipedia is good, but you have to be extra careful to evaluate the accuracy of postings.  They have gone to some trouble to revise and edit content, but it's not the same as having a few select experts on a specific field write the article (like a traditional encyclopedia).  I would be comfortable using it as a source, but certainly not my only source.
19822
If half the people who asked questions searched Wikipedia first there would be 75% less questions on Yahoo!Answers.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
392644
Generally when one copies and pastes someone else's work one gives credit to the author.  In this case that last post came from:\nhttp://www.ecglibrary.com/ecghist.html
934908
MY ANSWER IS A COPY PASTE OF ALL THE ABOVE