The website you would like to marry...

[Coolydudey]

Drawing on a joke from "you know you're an INTP when..." I was just wandering which is your favourite site. If you click other, please specify (even more geeky websites to look at!!)

 

[Roran]

TvTropes. It's like half entertainment and half learning. It's awesome.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

 

[Words]

Why would you even want to marry a website? what is this marriage-centrism?

 

[Coolydudey]

Why would you even want to marry a website? what is this marriage-centrism?

As I said, it's drawing from a joke in the thread "you know you're an INTP when..." in the lounge, which is a sticky, it's on the first page somewhere...

 

[snafupants]

This website. Aw...you guys.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Cognisant]

Wiki-tan, the girl that knows nearly everything, but lacks a sense of humor.

Trope-tan, quite simply the most interesting girl in the world.

 

[Da Blob]

I use wikipedia a lot, but just for reference, not entertainment. for non-interactive sites, I would have to say I like TED ...

 

[Agent Intellect]

Khan Academy.

I'd gay marry Salman Khan, too.

 

[chatvite]

Wikipedia? Ouch, guys....

“Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world, can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.” – Michael Scott

 

[Coolydudey]

Wikipedia? Ouch, guys....

“Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world, can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.” – Michael Scott

Definitely a good starting point for any research... It's always served me well for whatever I've looked up as well ( especially scientific and maths issues)

 

[Roran]

Trope-tan, quite simply the most interesting girl in the world.

Damn, I love Dragunovs.

 

[snafupants]

Wikipedia? Ouch, guys....

“Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world, can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.” – Michael Scott

Okay, but most of the information is pretty good, albeit improperly vetted, and the ideas expressed therein increase exposure to bona fide information, like studies. I like Wikipedia.

 

[MissQuote]

Okay, but most of the information is pretty good, albeit improperly vetted, and the ideas expressed therein increase exposure to bona fide information, like studies. I like Wikipedia.

I'm constantly defending wikipedia, and my use of it, to people with basically this same argument.

It is like a jumping off point. And anyway, it seems silly to respect any source as the know all tell all end all of factual information. Anything one wants to know about on a serious note should always be cross referenced for inconsistencies and possible omitted information.

It is really ridiculous of me a little though as most of the people I am doing this defending and explaining to aren't looking anything up in the first place most often; just opining aloofly for whatever reason, often to poke fun.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Dictionary.com / Thesaurus.com is my #1 information site.

Does anyone really ever use stumbleupon?

 

[chatvite]

I can see it as a jumping off point, but I think too many people over use it or rely on it too much. I have had students ask me how to cite Wikipedia. My answer is, "You don't."

 

[Fukyo]

I have had students ask me how to cite Wikipedia. My answer is, "You don't."

You instead look at the Wikipedia citations.

 

[Coolydudey]

And now we've entered an inescapable spiral of the trustworthiness of Wikipedia...

 

[chatvite]

And now we've entered an inescapable spiral of the trustworthiness of Wikipedia...

Well you started it!

 

[MissQuote]

Check it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

ha.

 

[MissQuote]

And,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Outtakes

 

[chatvite]

Check it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

ha.

As posted by Wikipedia....

 

[chatvite]

You can have reliability without validity. I'm just saying that Wikipedia is driven by crowdsourcing and is not the best place for valid and reliable information. I want true validity and reliability in my information. I have been known to look at a Wikipedia entry or two, but have only taken it for face value. I further research other sources for information.

 

[chatvite]

My last post on Wikipedia:

"A third learning and teaching concern is that, regardless of the reliability of Wikipedia, it is in itself an illegitimate form of research. Here the thinking would be that a student who culls Wikipedia for assignments does not understand scholarship. This consists of the consideration of various sources: a judicious sifting and ordering of knowledge, rather than lifting bite sized chunks of text that purport to capture a subject. On this Wales concurs, telling students: ‘For God sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia’ (in Young 2006)."

From scholarly work: Wikipedia and the University, a case study
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2012.666734

I am very happy to read that others don't rely on Wikipedia, but rather use it as a springboard on further research. As you can tell, this is a hot topic for me.