And now for some vaguely on-topic off-topicality: OOo 3.2

[Chris Rees]

On 17 February 2010 17:05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 February 2010 16:25, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Ian <ian69 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Not to belittle your efforts, but do you realize most professors and other
>>> academics do not allow the use of wikipedia  as a source for any type of
>>> research?  I'll soon be teaching, although it will be at a K-6 level, I will
>>> follow the example of my professors and not allow the use of wikipedia as a
>>> respectable source of information.  Your own post is enough justification
>>> (for me, anyway) for this decision.
>
>> Curious. Why, AAMOI?
>
>
> Because it's a starting point, not a finishing point. When asked about
> this, we say "no, we're not a reliable source, we're a useful one. If
> it's that important, check the references and use those." Anyone using
> Wikipedia as a reference source itself (for things other than itself)
> deserves whatever happens to them. Usually I say it more politely.
>
>

What Wikipedia _is_, though, is a fantastic place to steal a huge
number of references related to the topic!

Chris