well im a hetrosexual male so what would I know
but if anythin Federer seems better looking than Nadal
or monkey boy as I call him
ANYWAY LADS!! that anna ivanovic?! hey ?? phwoarr!!
Things that piss you off Page 716
Lofthouse you are jealous they are both handsome athletes with loads of women fans! 
Things that piss me off:
1)People who quote Wikipedia and who use it as a serious research tool..
2)Wikipedia;
3)Wikipedia.
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ July 4 2011, 3:40 PM BSTThings that piss me off:
1)People who quote Wikipedia and who use it as a serious research tool..
2)Wikipedia;
3)Wikipedia.
I have no time for wikipedophiles either.
I don't know. It can be quite useful.
I <3 Wikipedia.
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ July 4 2011, 3:40 PM BSTThings that piss me off:
1)People who quote Wikipedia and who use it as a serious research tool..
2)Wikipedia;
3)Wikipedia.
I was interviewing someone today who was quoting facts about our firm that were incorrect. He then tried to suggest that I had got it wrong, because 'that's not what is says on Wikipedia'.
Quote: AngieBaby @ July 4 2011, 7:16 PM BSTI was interviewing someone today who was quoting facts about our firm that were incorrect. He then tried to suggest that I had got it wrong, because 'that's not what is says on Wikipedia'.
What do you care? You hate everybody at your firm. And they hate you!
At least they get paid to hate me, you do it for free, you slaaaag!
Wikipedia is the official dispute-settler at my workplace.
And it's also an excellent tool for finding sources for university papers. On the good articles, everything has a link to a relevant source right next to the description regarding what's in the source - aces!
Wikipedia is dangerous. It is open source so could be written by a bunch of twelve year olds. It is unverified. And it is subject to hacking by Wikipedia guerillas. As Angiebaby said often it is wrong. Love the fact that you were faced with someone who not only used it but was willing to argue that it was right.
I will fail any student who uses Wikipedia as a cited source in their research because it is not reliable.
It's not dangerous at all. I find it a good starting point for looking up something, although most of the time for me that's just a TV show or film. Finding out who an actor was, or how many series something lasted.
Quote: KLRiley @ July 5 2011, 7:26 AM BSTWikipedia is dangerous. It is open source so could be written by a bunch of twelve year olds. It is unverified. And it is subject to hacking by Wikipedia guerillas. As Angiebaby said often it is wrong. Love the fact that you were faced with someone who not only used it but was willing to argue that it was right.
I will fail any student who uses Wikipedia as a cited source in their research because it is not reliable.
You have missed out that it is also subject to correction, time & time again by those who actually know what is right.
In that respect it is not much worse than any encyclopedia, but it is important to check the history list of each page as well.
Quote: billwill @ July 5 2011, 8:40 AM BSTYou have missed out that it is also subject to correction, time & time again by those who actually know what is right.
..and subsequent "correction" by those who don't.
As a check on who appeared in what TV series I don't have a problem with that. But as a reliable source that is used for research purposes? Like I said, any student daft enough to cire it in work they do for me will be failed because it's open source and subject to incompetence and malicious revisions.