[kwlug disc.] Microsoft in trouble for wanting Wikipedia edits

[Kyle Spaans]

Continuing the Wikipedia & Academics topic:
I, as a student (of uWaterloo in case any of you aren't familiar with
me) have lots of direct exposure to this kind of thing. I know for
sure that many many highschools simply do not accept Wikipedia
directly as a source for information, and many more Universities
straight up do not accept it.

Mind you, I'm not an Arts student, so I don't have to do a lot of
research for academic purposes, but I have done a few highschool
projects in my recent past. I was luckily enough to have english
teachers who were a little more intelligent about Wikipedia:
"By all means use Wikipedia as your source, but make sure you can back
up that information with other sites elsewhere!"

Just like previously mentioned by Warrick - you have to think about
what you are doing. Don't immediately believe anything that one single
source ever tells you. Understand where sources of bias or error come
from.

As an example, I was browsing thier website, looking for some info
about Linux, if only for entertainment. Their website search is
useless as it only comes up with "Industry Studies" and "Customer
Testimony" saying again and again that Microsoft is cheaper, easier,
better, cleaner, more stable, more secure, and will shine your shoes
for you. It's all a lot of fun to read, as long as you remember that
those sources are biased. The only way MS could ever get me to listen
to anything on their website, would be if something said "OK, so Linux
is better than us at 'X' and 'Y' because of that...But we can do
this...". Similarly, I don't really trust Linux activists who outright
claim Windows as an atrocious OS [as much as I may agree with them].
Who is going to pay for a study to compare apples to oranges? We can't
let apples or oranges pay for it themselves, can we?

It really just comes down to a little analysis and critital thinking I guess.