Wikipedia
People claiming something is true because it was on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source to be quoted UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

The vast majority of entries being made up or just slightly altered by people like me taking the piss so lazy students who can't be bothered to do real research fail exams by making spectacularly false claims.

This really grips my shit.
(magic the cat will someone please think of the kittens, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 12:09, 8 replies)

I did love 1 of my uni lecturers playing a double blind on a lot of students by deliberately
asking an essay question specifically designed for a very specific wiki quote... that she'd written.
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Fri 5 Oct 2012, 12:14, closed)

Haha, that's quite cunning

( LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 12:47, closed)

I used wikipedia loads when writing essays in uni.
I did have the gumption to rake about in the citations section however.

I think I can count on one hand how many times I set foot in the library while doing my degree.
( Slippery Mick ‏, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 12:23, closed)

Our village had a wiki page on there, but it was just the ramblings of a bitter old git - things like "Property prices will plummet when the airport gets the go-ahead" etc...

So, I tidied it up and made it more 'wikipedia' friendly and complient.

As I was struggling in the 'Notable Stuff' type section, I made up something about the phrase "Scott Free" coming from the village - when someone got away without paying the 'Scott tax' to Lord Scott. It was all bollocks.
I eventually went back and removed it in exchange for 'real' facts about the village.
You can now read in local history books about this phrase and tax coming from this very village.
Lazy bastard authors!
(dchurch bah, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 12:24, closed)

dchurch you are a brilliant man.
*click*
(D.I.pshit solved another case on, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 17:50, closed)

grips my shit?
How does that work?
(teebie jeebie, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 13:33, closed)

it's as good as Britannica, according to nature
news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

What you fail to understand is that wikipedia is the most extensive and complete reference work on earth, and though it is open to the public for editing, it is moderated.
People of modest intelligence are usually able to quickly see the difference between the majority of well-referenced articles on wikipedia, to the odd ones carrying speculation, opinion, lies or trolling, and then give appropriate credence to them. In the same way we might judge the information we read in a book.
( cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 15:42, closed)

clueless dick

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 5 Oct 2012, 20:19, closed)