Thread: I'd like to call Wikipedia, please

Phone a friend? On a TEST?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...911717490.html
Wouldn't this just make it too easy?

Too easy

John McCain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_118207.html

^ Big Lolz. If he really did that he's screwed.

Are there still ppl changin Obama's profile to be moslem? Today I saw sum of his childhood. Though he's christian, they put his religion "muslim" into the school register in indonesia. Good for sum redneck agenda

Dunno if its all that bad to have the "phone a friend" method in tests etc. On one hand, people will say that they dont learn anything, on the other hand, most people do forget everything they have learned right after they have finished the test, because they just want to pass it. Their not interested in remembering the knowledge they learned through the months of study.

But I guess Im against it, duing those test through study proves you have the ability to learn what needs to be learned. doesnt really matter if you can remember it, everybody forgets. You just need to prove that you actually can do the job, I think with the new test they have in Sydney, they cant prove a damn thing, but gettin eazy answers.

@ R3d
I knew wiki was popular, but people are puttin too much credit into that page

To much credit and too much Fat Jewish conspiracy around Wikipedia.
for example: the death of Germans soldiers in American/Russian Deathcamps
http://www.rense.com/general73/wiki.htm
or
Auswitch is a cheap emulation to Nanking

people shouldn't rely to much on Wiki.
for a quick answer

Well, if an exam is well made it doesn't really matter if you are allowed to look things up. I've had tests where you could bring the course textbook, and I've seen people fail those tests.


And Wikipedia is horribly unreliable. But that's what you get when you allow any monkey with a keyboard to contribute.

BBC - Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

*cough cough ahem cough*

...what?

Well you know that can actually "EDIT" some of its contents. right?

meaning that you can "Hack" McCain Speech

Originally Posted by R3dKnight

Well you know that can actually "EDIT" some of its contents. right?

meaning that you can "Hack" McCain Speech

Yes, but the contents of political articles on a controversial modern day, or in this case, current day, events and public figures are expected to be subject to bias and sabotage.

My point was, that scientific and overall academic subjects tend to be accurate whenever a study is done against Wikipedia.

Everybody who playerhates wiki is a fag and shall go to hell.
And big lolz at Mccain, everyone knows hes gay.