look someone new

[Ownage]

Lmao.

It's good to be 14.

[Hessah]

Lmao.

It's good to be 14.

LOL!!

Funny, i kinda expected that from Manzcar XD

[Manzcar]

expected what

[Hessah]

expected... answers for complicated financial-industry-related questions...

[Manzcar]

from lil ol me. I no

[Ownage]

"lil ol me."

Randomness~ how tall are you? :O

[Triumph]

Unless you need to cite sources, I do not believe that using Wikipedia as a source of information can be adequately concluded as plagiarism.

Wikipedia has approximately 85-95% accuracy on each page individually, with a composite total accuracy somewhere along the lines of 88%. Some sources claim that the total accuracy lies at 90%, as per the Nature study, while others claim that the total accuracy is actually 80%.

As any encyclopedia contains "general knowledge," suffice it to say that using the knowledge within an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, without copying exact sentence structuring, should be adequate in use with in a paper. Interestingly enough, teachers of mine who insist that any paper influenced by Wikipedia is a guaranteed zero often award me full marks for a paper formed exclusively from Wikipedia and personal background knowledge. No, paraphrasing at a higher degree, rather than simple rearrangement of words in each sentence. Of course, all information should be cross-referenced with a secondary or even tertiary source, in order to ensure full accuracy.

[Ralath]

My English teacher gave me a C on my research paper because I cited Wikipedia.



Should have just said it came from a different source...

[Hessah]

For uni, you need to cite scholar journals... and... websites of any kind is pretty much considered insufficient... not only Wiki...

[Spirit]

Since this is a business management I have to use business journals as my sources. But this was a written test. I was not supposed to have any references. But, he doesn't want us to pull our research from wikipedia.