.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Murph.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Murph:870041"][QUOTE="Conservationist:870037"][QUOTE="Murph:869998"]These citations (the sources, not Wiki itself), along with the external links can be extremely helpful when writing a paper because of the breadth of information that can be added from anyone from scholarly to amateur fact-checkers and historians.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia is 100% plagiarized and paraphrased. There are better sources to find on all important topics. The school's right by cutting out the lazy bibliography site![/QUOTE] I don't see how that is constructive at all. Of course there are better sources, they're called first-hand accounts. Even libraries, filled with books, which, unless subject to misprint, are the most trusted tangibles to finding exactly what is said, what is meant, and by whom. That is not relevant, however, as many of these SOURCES are the ones CITED on WIKIPEDIA, which means by proxy that WIKI CAN BE USEFUL, my original point. You're not a conservationist, you're an idealist. Oh, and guess what else are 100% plagiarized and paraphrased? Research(ed) papers. Now go find some obscure articles about how everyone is wrong and you're right, so you can play preservationist.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][