Wikipedia ka tuho an bah 100% or dli

[nio1234]

---

dili 100% kay sobra ra ka broad...

[r51d3r19]

well for me lang...i think it's 90% accurate. for me ra na hap kay most of my research anha man ko magsource out if i think naa ko gamay doubts...try ko sa uban nya mao2x ra man japon.

[Heikelovebabe]

Tolle Portalseite die auf jedenfall auch uns gefallen duerfte. Aber auch meine Texte dürfte gefallen auch wenn sie sich um
SPAMBOT

[rodsky]

hehehe mao bah bai pwedi na diay reference and wikipedia sa school reports?hehehehe
ako dli man ko kaayo mag salig sa wikipedia pero na amazed lang jud ko sa kadaghan sa iyang information, thats y nag wonder ko if accurate bah jud....hehehe nya lately raman ko kabalo na pwedi ra diay bisag kinsa mo hatag information dha.....

You're not using Wikipedia effectively then. If you're reading an article in Wikipedia, it's NOT enough to read the entry on the topic page--the strength of the article lies in its References listed on the bottom. If you are able to trace these references and verify their authority, then the more you can trust what is posted on the page.

People also seem to be confused on what they want:

a) Do you want an information source that's only controlled by ONE entity (thereby if that ONE entity feels that "Muslims are all evil people" then he/they can inject their beliefs in the database, without consulting the rest of the world)?

b) Do you want an information source that's not controlled by one entity, but by ALL people, and although there lies the danger of false input, mediocre fact-gathering, and possible tampering, the fact that it's accessible by the public means that the REAL experts on a topic can always check if the information is indeed authentic and authoritative?

Hala pili daw mo beh.

-RODION

[elvandesantos]

ayaw gud. wai klaro nah ilahang source usahay

[gerrynelmida]

katuho an bah na ang wikipedia nah pwedi raman bisan kinsa ang mo edit sa ilang mga informations? though if you want instant report para school pwedi na cguro. butang lang sa source "WIKI"....

what do you think mga people?

maybe yes, maybe no.

[yiennahs]

dili ko mutoo 100% kay pagtan-aw naku sa bio sa akong crush na si Coco Martin kay murag botbot man

[THE KID]

authorship and realiability ang problema sa wikipedia.....dili ka trace sa iyang sources...sa academe og maghimo kag term papers, master's thesis...it's a no no......

[rodsky]

...dili ka trace sa iyang sources...

I beg to disagree...

https://www.istorya.net/forums/10664364-post54.html

Look up References.

-RODION

[denkyo]

Bitaw
Basically, all pages on wikipedia are user-created, ug pwede ma edit bisan unsa orasa sa mga way tarong. The pages rely 100% on someone giving enough of a damn about something to come onto their site and create an accurate page for it. And even if the initial page was accurate, bisan kinsa pwede maka usab ani ug usbon everything ang naa sa page.