PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCMENT

Wikipedia is not a proper source to cite your bullshit meme answers.

If anything it is a jumping off point for beginners who are looking for insight on a subject.

STOP LINKING WIKIPEDIA.

>Take a pic of a book, why this is an image board.
>link a documentary, why we have embedded links.
>Pull up primary sources and secondary sources, There are hundreds of thousands of data bases to do this that takes little more time than highlighting, copying, and pasting a link and segment that is probably obscurely false from Wikipedia.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

But doesn't Wikipedia have those sources already linked.

No.

Guess someone got blown the fuck out by a simple Wikipedia article.

Just stop being dumb and then you won't be intellectually dominated by people capable of using Google. Is Wikipedia a valid source? That really depends. There are citations on the page generally. Anyone who cares to find out the validity can do so. It's not a big deal.

Then what are the little numbers that link to:
- books
- articles
- documentaries
- films

I had a professor who had such a hateboner for this innocent website that he always bragged about how he would go and sabatoge random pages he knew his students would be looking at so they came in with wrong information later.
Great, you're a public nuisance. What the fuck are you trying to prove?

Anyway the point is that anti-wiki fags are all autistic

>documentary
LMAO
At least Wikipedia gives you a list of references that you can evaluate

>But doesn't Wikipedia have those sources already linked.

It's better to actually look for all the relevant material for yourself since users pick and choose which ones would be best for it than an entire overview.

How else am I supposed to post my jew-approved history?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility

not op but I usually explore the references to see, sometimes they are shit dead links.

also wouldn't doubt that most of the people here do not explore the footnotes on wiki pages.

I was saying no to the OP, not to the post above me.

Cool?
But if they take their information from that, why bother even going to the linked article if you've just read and shorthand version of it.
Kinda defeats the point of going to the source, even if it was just to check something they missed.

Irony.

Lol this guy is probably just OP.

this entire thread is bait.

I do. Because OP is right in that Wikipedia alone isn't a source. But then again, every source should be questioned and understood whether it comes from Wikipedia or any other source including scholars.

So, if people want to learn and see if information is accurate they have to do some digging. And if they don't want to do that? Then they are just lazy faggots who shouldn't be having debates they did not or do not care to research. In which case you can give them any source you want and it won't matter to them. They'll either dismiss it or accept it if it fits their views.

[citation needed]

I agree with you

Wikipedia is controled by leftistsd and thus is shit


Only primary sources and archeological datas should be tolerated on Veeky Forums

some of the audience completely lack any sort of historical education so very basic things are ok to link, we dont need to prove them

however when you get into details, its generally not a good idea because its often inaccurate

example
>does gabon exist? were there kingdoms in africa?

go ahead and link a wiki link

>did manstein really attack with 22222 tigers and the russians literally form a human wall?

post some actual evidence, they are not easy to find but are certainly there

i wish id have a smartphone and could post pictures of my books

>could post pictures of my books
My problem with books is mainly remembering what page I read whatever information is being debated as I have a scanner. When you read a lot of books about a lot of different subjects it can be hard to remember where exactly this or that passage/figure was in a book.

nothing wrong with using wikipedia for source on this site, dont be faglords

>i wish id have a smartphone and could post pictures of my books
shitty analog medium that is only good for burning and holy fuck you don't have a smartphone?

Most wiki's are well written and well sourced. Especially on the less controversial topics.

Linking to WP is God-tier compared to YT

>Take a pic of a book, why this is an image board.
English isn't the first language for a lot of people here. I'd argue those people mostly have historical books in their own languages, barring some more esoteric stuff that hasn't been written about in their own language.

Most of the sources they link are from trash websites or 200 year old books, seriously

You are under the false impression that Veeky Forums is a place for serious discourse and the sharing of relevant information. It’s not.

And considering the butthurt autist level of this thinly veiled /rel/-substitute, any link to Wikipedia will most likely convey more knowledge than user’s entire career of Christfag home schooling.

>Most
I dare you to provide 3 examples.