General Science Discussion Thread!

Wolverine said:
Sven said:
Wolverine said:
Sven said:
Wolverine said:
Wikipedia's the best source, beating NASA and National Geographic
Click to expand...
Regardless of your opinion on Wikipedia, stars such as UY Scuti and Westerlund 1-26 are very clearly bigger than the star you mentioned, and they're all cited with reputable sources.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge this, but (s)he should use better sources in the future
Click to expand...
...Seriously? Wikipedia is as much of a reputable source as anything else. As long as its information is cited, there's absolutely no harm in citing it. That's like saying that our MarioWiki is worthless, and I can tell you that everyone's work has certainly not gone to waste.
Click to expand...
Consider this: Most Universities don't accept papers citing Wikipedia. Hell, even high schools won't in certain cases
Click to expand...
...And your point is?
 
If you took the time to actually see if Wikipedia was credible instead of just miming the lectures of highschool teachers from 2008, then you'd see that wikipedia has gr8 references and if you've got an oldschool teacher who doesn't understand how technology progresses you can just cite those direct sources that wikipedia used and just not plagiarize the wikipedia page.

ernesth100 said:
No I mean like is NASA company working with Google?
Click to expand...

I still don't understand if that's a real question because I just can't like wow please
 
ernesth100 said:
Well now I just feel stupid...then again half the people on this thread are using google and yahoo answers to reply so I feel a little better now.
Click to expand...

tbh I pulled up the article via googling it to avoid trawling through this particular thread for too long because, oh it's such a wonderful thread.

also ily2 SM347 aren't you a little gem too. :birdo: