How does, Freedom of Speech, work?

[crimsonedge]

Do it.

Yeah, lets hear it! *grabs popcorn*.

[Mistral]

Alright, fine. Properly sourced, Wikipedia articles are no worse than any other reference source, and are frequently better. It's a little unusual given the standard operation of Wikipedia essentially requires the democratization of knowledge, but apart from vandals and unsourced statements, which are hunted down and either removed or flagged (respectively) as a part of standard policy, it frequently is quite accurate to the subject matter. In fact, Wikipedia more easily permits access to more in-depth knowledge and research through its policy of mandatory references and cross-linked subjects, thereby easing the difficulty of research without significantly degenerating its significance. As well, the skepticism many possess towards Wikipedia tends to encourage habits of critical thought that many do not exercise in other sources. In essence, it is a reasonable source for simple matters, and an excellent starting point for critical analysis into a wide range of subjects.

Also, I read the SC majority and dissenting opinions on the cases in question, not just Wikipedia. The way I got to them quickly and easily? From Wikipedia, which directly linked the Supreme Court documents on these cases as primary references for its articles on these subjects.

[crimsonedge]

Alright, fine. Properly sourced, Wikipedia articles are no worse than any other reference source, and are frequently better. It's a little unusual given the standard operation of Wikipedia essentially requires the democratization of knowledge, but apart from vandals and unsourced statements, which are hunted down and either removed or flagged (respectively) as a part of standard policy, it frequently is quite accurate to the subject matter. In fact, Wikipedia more easily permits access to more in-depth knowledge and research through its policy of mandatory references and cross-linked subjects, thereby easing the difficulty of research without significantly degenerating its significance. As well, the skepticism many possess towards Wikipedia tends to encourage habits of critical thought that many do not exercise in other sources. In essence, it is a reasonable source for simple matters, and an excellent starting point for critical analysis into a wide range of subjects.

Also, I read the SC majority and dissenting opinions on the cases in question, not just Wikipedia. The way I got to them quickly and easily? From Wikipedia, which directly linked the Supreme Court documents on these cases as primary references for its articles on these subjects.

[mekeninzo]

Like this, bananas.........

[lizard81288]

Alright, fine. Properly sourced, Wikipedia articles are no worse than any other reference source, and are frequently better. It's a little unusual given the standard operation of Wikipedia essentially requires the democratization of knowledge, but apart from vandals and unsourced statements, which are hunted down and either removed or flagged (respectively) as a part of standard policy, it frequently is quite accurate to the subject matter. In fact, Wikipedia more easily permits access to more in-depth knowledge and research through its policy of mandatory references and cross-linked subjects, thereby easing the difficulty of research without significantly degenerating its significance. As well, the skepticism many possess towards Wikipedia tends to encourage habits of critical thought that many do not exercise in other sources. In essence, it is a reasonable source for simple matters, and an excellent starting point for critical analysis into a wide range of subjects.

Also, I read the SC majority and dissenting opinions on the cases in question, not just Wikipedia. The way I got to them quickly and easily? From Wikipedia, which directly linked the Supreme Court documents on these cases as primary references for its articles on these subjects.

Yeah, I hate when people discredit Wikipedia. They say anybody can edit it, so thats the end of that, but yet Fox News and other bias sites are ok?! I tell them what you said (people are teachers), but to no avail. That may have been the case a long time ago, and misc articles that are not popular may still have trolling, but things on this nature, and other educational stuff, like math, science, ect, are modded.

If someone is in college they should wright a paper as to why Wikipedia is good, and only get sources from Wikipedia or biased new sites to prove a point. Like saying O-bama is a Secret Muslim, who wants to destory 'merica.

or any of these will do:

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...fox-news-lies/