Wiki vs Book - Round 2

To be honest, ‘Biggest Pay Job for Fresh Graduates’ (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=16730&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) thread really interesting. But too bad…

Never mind, well start another argument. Wiki vs Book, which is better.
SH, the honour is yours to start 1st.

i already did here[/spoiler]:

that one no argument required.
wiki is way way more accurate, more factual, more scientific, more progressive, more up-to-date, more relevant, more useful than books that claim to have been around for 1500-2000 years. supposedly unchanged in all those time too.

bring it on!

BTW, where are all the information in the wiki come from ? Wiki is only around when internet came about. Before internet, where is wiki?

Wiki info comes from a compilation of existing books (with proper references to them of cox) and from experts on the field, wiki could be better in a sense it has many info from books of the topic. People also debate on info on the subject before updating the site.

If u put it that way, i can ask u, before there existed written words, there were no books, how were books made and where did books come from?? same question as ur’s… pls think before u ask…

i prefer wiki,

reason, wiki can save our time in searching for certain material.
rather than searching through the thick book…

the books sure can kill u de, if u read it finish.

WIKI ALL THE WAY

so, whatever comes first is better isit? then i sure better than you liao lor, because i’m older than you… where were you when i started debating religion vs. evolution (and i was on religion side too)? :twisted:

Wiki info comes from a compilation of existing books (with proper references to them of cox) and from experts on the field, wiki could be better in a sense it has many info from books of the topic. People also debate on info on the subject before updating the site.

If u put it that way, i can ask u, before there existed written words, there were no books, how were books made and where did books come from?? same question as ur’s… pls think before u ask…[/quote]

I always think before I answer!!

I just have one question for you…Do any learning institution using wiki as a teaching medium? If yes, where? If no, why? Please think before you answers too…

i already did here[/spoiler]:

that one no argument required.
wiki is way way more accurate, more factual, more scientific, more progressive, more up-to-date, more relevant, more useful than books that claim to have been around for 1500-2000 years. supposedly unchanged in all those time too.

bring it on![/quote]

How can wiki be more factual, more accurate, more scientififc etc than books when the sources of information is still from books??? see below quote from PH :

Wiki info comes from a compilation of existing books (with proper references to them of cox) and from experts on the field, wiki could be better in a sense it has many info from books of the topic. People also debate on info on the subject before updating the site.

do you know of any institution that claim the text books used in their course are perfect, 100% accurate no weakness and no room for improvement? except the religious institutions of course…

Wiki allows u to have many perspective of the same topic compared to a book. While books tend to have one sided views…

And as for ur question, i counter it with another question.
Go see each countries’ history text books that they use to educate their youngsters in school. They are not the same. The Japanese history text book would suggest Japan was an innocent victim of a nuclear attack in WW2 while South East Asian countries would suggest that the Japanese were evil people… See the point here, ur questions have no backbone, logic and are contradictory to ur points

Wiki is widely accepted a reference material. Been to a college or uni? Then u should know how to write bibliography. Those are to declare the exact materials u have used for the topic ur working on or researching, and of cox, wiki is accepted besides books. Writing up a report without a bibliography is considered as copying and cheating.

i don’t know where you got your education… but did you submit paper(s) referencing only one book/paper and claim that “how can a paper that refers more sources be more accurate and more scientific than from just one source…”

and i also assume that you are not holding an engineering or science (except IT) degree…

I got a PHD in chemical engineering…

Technical paper is not wiki…mr. Pig head…Did you also never read a technical book with many many references at the back??

BTW, if you can show me what are your credentials, I think this discussion just ended here…for I refuse to talk to a pig!!

[quote=“davidshania”]I got a PHD in chemical engineering…
Technical paper is not wiki…mr. Pig head…Did you also never read a technical book with many many references at the back??[/quote]

wow… i better quickly run away…

hmm… flamming?? are u sure people talk their minds and share their wisdoms thru credentials?

then wow!! Sun Tze muz be a PHD holder, Confucius another Cambridge scholar… wow!!

If u think that only people with that piece of toilet paper are smart people, then wow, i pity the people around u

wow… your must be making your alma mater very proud… nice education…

[quote=“davidshania”]I got a PHD in chemical engineering…

Technical paper is not wiki…mr. Pig head…Did you also never read a technical book with many many references at the back??[/quote]

mind telling me which place u graduate from, what year, so that i can tell this story of how PHD ppl are made to my kids?

Encyclopedias.

However, because it’s a free-for-all to edit, wikipedia cannot be regarded as an accurate reference.

however encyclopedias tend to fall behind time as every day new things are discovered and some old facts rewritten…

Encyclopedias.
However, because it’s a free-for-all to edit, wikipedia cannot be regarded as an accurate reference.[/quote]

you know about the wiki vs britannica study right…?