• 0 Posts
  • 65 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 4th, 2025

help-circle





  • I agree. You don’t use it as a source in an academic paper, just like you shouldn’t be using an encyclopedia. It’s still way better than listing Chat GPT as a source, but the quality of your sources matter in that setting.

    It’s an incredible resource though and great jumping off point for research. It’s so much bigger than any normal encyclopedia, and from what ive heard it’s usually more accurate than a traditional encyclopedia (do they still exist?), despite anyone being able to edit it. It’s a source for winning an argument with a friend, not for academic papers (the sources listed on the Wikipedia article are often good). Expect to be called out on it if you cite it.

    There’s many issues with academic journals and one could argue Wikipedia is actually better for evading those traps, but your prof isn’t going to see it that way and you’ll lose marks for using a bad source




  • He did but the key difference is that one of them killed a bunch of people with the gun they brought to their protest and the other just was carrying and was shot dead by ice guys.

    Another difference is that one was a handgun and the other was some sort of ar16 looking thing, but if the guns were switched and the guy filming Ice was carrying an AR he borrowed from another state. Id still be thinking they shouldnt have tackled him and shot him in the back just because he had his phone out

    Plus one