<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_16_2049229</id>
	<title>How Students Use Wikipedia</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268741340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>crazybilly writes <i>"First Monday recently released a study about <a href="http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476">how college students actually use Wikipedia</a>. Not surprisingly, they found, 'Overall, college students use Wikipedia. But, they do so knowing its limitation. They use Wikipedia just as most of us do &mdash; because it is a quick way to get started and it has some, but not deep, credibility.' The study offers some initial data to help settle the often heated controversy over Wikipedia's usefulness as a research tool and how it affects students' research."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>crazybilly writes " First Monday recently released a study about how college students actually use Wikipedia .
Not surprisingly , they found , 'Overall , college students use Wikipedia .
But , they do so knowing its limitation .
They use Wikipedia just as most of us do    because it is a quick way to get started and it has some , but not deep , credibility .
' The study offers some initial data to help settle the often heated controversy over Wikipedia 's usefulness as a research tool and how it affects students ' research .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crazybilly writes "First Monday recently released a study about how college students actually use Wikipedia.
Not surprisingly, they found, 'Overall, college students use Wikipedia.
But, they do so knowing its limitation.
They use Wikipedia just as most of us do — because it is a quick way to get started and it has some, but not deep, credibility.
' The study offers some initial data to help settle the often heated controversy over Wikipedia's usefulness as a research tool and how it affects students' research.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507390</id>
	<title>What's wrong with limited plagiarism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're only copying sentences, what's wrong? Many times I find Wikipedia has some of the most concise summaries of complex topics.</p><p>When it comes to papers where you analyse data, why not avoid the stupid stuff (definitions) and offload it on wikipedia, and get to the heart of the topic? Wouldn't that be a much more efficient way of writing?</p><p>This obviously won't work for persuasive papers, because wikipedia tends to be neutral and fact based.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're only copying sentences , what 's wrong ?
Many times I find Wikipedia has some of the most concise summaries of complex topics.When it comes to papers where you analyse data , why not avoid the stupid stuff ( definitions ) and offload it on wikipedia , and get to the heart of the topic ?
Would n't that be a much more efficient way of writing ? This obviously wo n't work for persuasive papers , because wikipedia tends to be neutral and fact based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're only copying sentences, what's wrong?
Many times I find Wikipedia has some of the most concise summaries of complex topics.When it comes to papers where you analyse data, why not avoid the stupid stuff (definitions) and offload it on wikipedia, and get to the heart of the topic?
Wouldn't that be a much more efficient way of writing?This obviously won't work for persuasive papers, because wikipedia tends to be neutral and fact based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511966</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is accurate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Wikipedia is quite accurate, more then most people give it credit for.  In my University we discussed the authenticity of Wikipedia information and reviewed studies.  Most studies found as many errors in Wikipedia (at any given time) equal to, or less than, man scholarly works.  In fact as a test some of my friends spent there time deliberately changing Wikipedia contents to false statements.  Due to its peer reviewed process not only were their entries promptly corrected, but they even received cease and desist warnings from Wikipedia which were quite threatening.</p><p>Only three of my teachers at the University challenged Wikipedia content students found on technical matters (I studied computer technology and science).  As an expert in their fields they argued a few topics students had found in Wikipedia pages.  On all accounts the teachers were wrong and the Wikipedia articles were correct.</p><p>I know most people hypothesis that a peer reviewed knowledge base must somehow be inaccurate or corrupt do to its nature.  But to be quite honest, I have yet to find a single quantifiable discrepancy in my own personal research.  I thought I had found errors a few times as some items challenged things I had thought correct for years...but I later discovered I was actually incorrect, and the Wikipedia information right.</p><p>Does anyone else have any experiences where they were surprised to find Wikipedia information was more accurate then you expected?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Wikipedia is quite accurate , more then most people give it credit for .
In my University we discussed the authenticity of Wikipedia information and reviewed studies .
Most studies found as many errors in Wikipedia ( at any given time ) equal to , or less than , man scholarly works .
In fact as a test some of my friends spent there time deliberately changing Wikipedia contents to false statements .
Due to its peer reviewed process not only were their entries promptly corrected , but they even received cease and desist warnings from Wikipedia which were quite threatening.Only three of my teachers at the University challenged Wikipedia content students found on technical matters ( I studied computer technology and science ) .
As an expert in their fields they argued a few topics students had found in Wikipedia pages .
On all accounts the teachers were wrong and the Wikipedia articles were correct.I know most people hypothesis that a peer reviewed knowledge base must somehow be inaccurate or corrupt do to its nature .
But to be quite honest , I have yet to find a single quantifiable discrepancy in my own personal research .
I thought I had found errors a few times as some items challenged things I had thought correct for years...but I later discovered I was actually incorrect , and the Wikipedia information right.Does anyone else have any experiences where they were surprised to find Wikipedia information was more accurate then you expected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Wikipedia is quite accurate, more then most people give it credit for.
In my University we discussed the authenticity of Wikipedia information and reviewed studies.
Most studies found as many errors in Wikipedia (at any given time) equal to, or less than, man scholarly works.
In fact as a test some of my friends spent there time deliberately changing Wikipedia contents to false statements.
Due to its peer reviewed process not only were their entries promptly corrected, but they even received cease and desist warnings from Wikipedia which were quite threatening.Only three of my teachers at the University challenged Wikipedia content students found on technical matters (I studied computer technology and science).
As an expert in their fields they argued a few topics students had found in Wikipedia pages.
On all accounts the teachers were wrong and the Wikipedia articles were correct.I know most people hypothesis that a peer reviewed knowledge base must somehow be inaccurate or corrupt do to its nature.
But to be quite honest, I have yet to find a single quantifiable discrepancy in my own personal research.
I thought I had found errors a few times as some items challenged things I had thought correct for years...but I later discovered I was actually incorrect, and the Wikipedia information right.Does anyone else have any experiences where they were surprised to find Wikipedia information was more accurate then you expected?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508688</id>
	<title>I use Wikipedia for the source citations.</title>
	<author>unsupported</author>
	<datestamp>1268841540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is how to get away using Wikipedia in college.  Use Wikipedia as the main source/clearing house of information, but then cite the source information in the article and not Wikipedia directly.  How easy is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how to get away using Wikipedia in college .
Use Wikipedia as the main source/clearing house of information , but then cite the source information in the article and not Wikipedia directly .
How easy is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how to get away using Wikipedia in college.
Use Wikipedia as the main source/clearing house of information, but then cite the source information in the article and not Wikipedia directly.
How easy is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510916</id>
	<title>I have never understood plagiarism.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1268849340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never understood plagiarism.  I mean, I understand being lazy, but damn.  Do these people have such a low grasp of the English language that they cannot re-write, even trivially re-write a passage?</p><p>If Wikipedia says:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"A train is a connected series of vehicles for rail transport that move along a track  (permanent way) to transport freight or passengers from one place to another. The track usually consists of two rails, but might also be a monorail or maglev guideway."</p><p>What is so hard about writing:</p><p>A train is a vehicle made up of a series of connected sub-vehicles designed for providing transport along a track made of rails.  These vehicles can be used to move passengers or freight from one place to another.  The rails are usually laid in pairs, but sometimes a single rail, or even no rails, in the case of maglev trains, may be used.</p><p>I did that in about one minute.  It's a complete re-write of the actual citation, without plagiarizing.</p><p>But if you really, really want to quote verbatim, why not just QUOTE VERBATIM, use quotation marks, and then cite with a footnote?  I mean, damn, most teachers would practically have an orgasm reading something with an actual citation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never understood plagiarism .
I mean , I understand being lazy , but damn .
Do these people have such a low grasp of the English language that they can not re-write , even trivially re-write a passage ? If Wikipedia says : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train [ wikipedia.org ] " A train is a connected series of vehicles for rail transport that move along a track ( permanent way ) to transport freight or passengers from one place to another .
The track usually consists of two rails , but might also be a monorail or maglev guideway .
" What is so hard about writing : A train is a vehicle made up of a series of connected sub-vehicles designed for providing transport along a track made of rails .
These vehicles can be used to move passengers or freight from one place to another .
The rails are usually laid in pairs , but sometimes a single rail , or even no rails , in the case of maglev trains , may be used.I did that in about one minute .
It 's a complete re-write of the actual citation , without plagiarizing.But if you really , really want to quote verbatim , why not just QUOTE VERBATIM , use quotation marks , and then cite with a footnote ?
I mean , damn , most teachers would practically have an orgasm reading something with an actual citation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never understood plagiarism.
I mean, I understand being lazy, but damn.
Do these people have such a low grasp of the English language that they cannot re-write, even trivially re-write a passage?If Wikipedia says:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train [wikipedia.org]"A train is a connected series of vehicles for rail transport that move along a track  (permanent way) to transport freight or passengers from one place to another.
The track usually consists of two rails, but might also be a monorail or maglev guideway.
"What is so hard about writing:A train is a vehicle made up of a series of connected sub-vehicles designed for providing transport along a track made of rails.
These vehicles can be used to move passengers or freight from one place to another.
The rails are usually laid in pairs, but sometimes a single rail, or even no rails, in the case of maglev trains, may be used.I did that in about one minute.
It's a complete re-write of the actual citation, without plagiarizing.But if you really, really want to quote verbatim, why not just QUOTE VERBATIM, use quotation marks, and then cite with a footnote?
I mean, damn, most teachers would practically have an orgasm reading something with an actual citation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506976</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is an important research tool</title>
	<author>Vario</author>
	<datestamp>1268832420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the natural sciences Wikipedia is an important tool in research. In independent reviews the accuracy was on an equal level as other encyclopedias (Britannica), see for example: <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Wpausstellung-18.pdf" title="wikimedia.org">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Wpausstellung-18.pdf</a> [wikimedia.org] (german language).<br>It provides a free source with fulltext search. In many cases the original research is cited, so that you can look for more detailed information.</p><p>Just imagine trying to get quick information about something without. I am currently working on Quantum criticality. A quick google search provides you with tons of information, the wikipedia entry is a accurate one-page document which cites the most important theoretical papers from the past few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the natural sciences Wikipedia is an important tool in research .
In independent reviews the accuracy was on an equal level as other encyclopedias ( Britannica ) , see for example : http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Wpausstellung-18.pdf [ wikimedia.org ] ( german language ) .It provides a free source with fulltext search .
In many cases the original research is cited , so that you can look for more detailed information.Just imagine trying to get quick information about something without .
I am currently working on Quantum criticality .
A quick google search provides you with tons of information , the wikipedia entry is a accurate one-page document which cites the most important theoretical papers from the past few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the natural sciences Wikipedia is an important tool in research.
In independent reviews the accuracy was on an equal level as other encyclopedias (Britannica), see for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Wpausstellung-18.pdf [wikimedia.org] (german language).It provides a free source with fulltext search.
In many cases the original research is cited, so that you can look for more detailed information.Just imagine trying to get quick information about something without.
I am currently working on Quantum criticality.
A quick google search provides you with tons of information, the wikipedia entry is a accurate one-page document which cites the most important theoretical papers from the past few years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510028</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of the people who study with me copy parts of text from Wikipedia, without any citation. They change the words, though. I don't like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the people who study with me copy parts of text from Wikipedia , without any citation .
They change the words , though .
I do n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the people who study with me copy parts of text from Wikipedia, without any citation.
They change the words, though.
I don't like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510528</id>
	<title>The How-to</title>
	<author>CapnStank</author>
	<datestamp>1268848260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find Wikipedia to actually be a useful source of information when doing research. Its essentially a summary of anything useful to you. If you go to Wikipedia and find 'factual information' that is useful to your research then follow it up with the cited source. If the source proves to be reliable then cite that on your own work and not the Wikipedia article you located it on. <br> <br>
Wikipedia is my modern librarian. I go there looking for a summary of resources that I can use for my paper then look them up online or at my university's library/Amazon/etc. Its much easier then attempting to find the useful sources from scratch without any knowledge of the content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find Wikipedia to actually be a useful source of information when doing research .
Its essentially a summary of anything useful to you .
If you go to Wikipedia and find 'factual information ' that is useful to your research then follow it up with the cited source .
If the source proves to be reliable then cite that on your own work and not the Wikipedia article you located it on .
Wikipedia is my modern librarian .
I go there looking for a summary of resources that I can use for my paper then look them up online or at my university 's library/Amazon/etc .
Its much easier then attempting to find the useful sources from scratch without any knowledge of the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find Wikipedia to actually be a useful source of information when doing research.
Its essentially a summary of anything useful to you.
If you go to Wikipedia and find 'factual information' that is useful to your research then follow it up with the cited source.
If the source proves to be reliable then cite that on your own work and not the Wikipedia article you located it on.
Wikipedia is my modern librarian.
I go there looking for a summary of resources that I can use for my paper then look them up online or at my university's library/Amazon/etc.
Its much easier then attempting to find the useful sources from scratch without any knowledge of the content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507614</id>
	<title>Re:reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268836920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that would mean that you add a [citation needed] in there, or do it yourself, and cite your own work.<br>And then you can cite your old work in your new work.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Of course, citing Wikipedia is illegal on any self-respecting university anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that would mean that you add a [ citation needed ] in there , or do it yourself , and cite your own work.And then you can cite your old work in your new work .
; ) Of course , citing Wikipedia is illegal on any self-respecting university anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that would mean that you add a [citation needed] in there, or do it yourself, and cite your own work.And then you can cite your old work in your new work.
;)Of course, citing Wikipedia is illegal on any self-respecting university anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508528</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1268840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most major inventions are credited to first being invented by the Chinese, regardless how little evidence there is, or whether the invention was anything more than a dream, drawing, or element in a painting.</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean someone's auto-replaced "Russian" with "Chinese"?  Those bastards!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most major inventions are credited to first being invented by the Chinese , regardless how little evidence there is , or whether the invention was anything more than a dream , drawing , or element in a painting.You mean someone 's auto-replaced " Russian " with " Chinese " ?
Those bastards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most major inventions are credited to first being invented by the Chinese, regardless how little evidence there is, or whether the invention was anything more than a dream, drawing, or element in a painting.You mean someone's auto-replaced "Russian" with "Chinese"?
Those bastards!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512922</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>whovian</author>
	<datestamp>1268854860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap. I didn't scroll down far enough before commiting the same joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap .
I did n't scroll down far enough before commiting the same joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap.
I didn't scroll down far enough before commiting the same joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507436</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1268835780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do that when Wikipedia lists the sources at the bottom for you to cite?  And then when the teacher sees that you copied Wikipedia, you say that you're the very person who posted those sentences.  You figured since you were doing so much research, that you might as well update Wikipedia.  It's the cheater's dream!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do that when Wikipedia lists the sources at the bottom for you to cite ?
And then when the teacher sees that you copied Wikipedia , you say that you 're the very person who posted those sentences .
You figured since you were doing so much research , that you might as well update Wikipedia .
It 's the cheater 's dream !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do that when Wikipedia lists the sources at the bottom for you to cite?
And then when the teacher sees that you copied Wikipedia, you say that you're the very person who posted those sentences.
You figured since you were doing so much research, that you might as well update Wikipedia.
It's the cheater's dream!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508056</id>
	<title>Re:Credibility</title>
	<author>Jimmy King</author>
	<datestamp>1268839020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an argument that I frequently make when people say that using wikipedia is bad because anyone can edit it, so it could easily be incorrect.<br><br>I returned to college a few years back after many years working in the real world as high level support and a software developer.  One of the most entertaining things for me is to go through my college textbooks on technical subjects and see how many incorrect statements I can find.  I've got a college textbook sitting around here somewhere that claims JavaScript runs in the actual Java JVM and that PHP and JavaScript have very little built in functionality and mostly function by running local binaries, storing the output, and then passing that output to another local binary.<br><br>Just because it's printed on dead trees, even from a "reputable" source, doesn't mean that everything in it is accurate and can be trusted.  You should always have several sources and compare information between those sources to come to your conclusions.  I see nothing wrong with including wikipedia as just one of many sources that you use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an argument that I frequently make when people say that using wikipedia is bad because anyone can edit it , so it could easily be incorrect.I returned to college a few years back after many years working in the real world as high level support and a software developer .
One of the most entertaining things for me is to go through my college textbooks on technical subjects and see how many incorrect statements I can find .
I 've got a college textbook sitting around here somewhere that claims JavaScript runs in the actual Java JVM and that PHP and JavaScript have very little built in functionality and mostly function by running local binaries , storing the output , and then passing that output to another local binary.Just because it 's printed on dead trees , even from a " reputable " source , does n't mean that everything in it is accurate and can be trusted .
You should always have several sources and compare information between those sources to come to your conclusions .
I see nothing wrong with including wikipedia as just one of many sources that you use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an argument that I frequently make when people say that using wikipedia is bad because anyone can edit it, so it could easily be incorrect.I returned to college a few years back after many years working in the real world as high level support and a software developer.
One of the most entertaining things for me is to go through my college textbooks on technical subjects and see how many incorrect statements I can find.
I've got a college textbook sitting around here somewhere that claims JavaScript runs in the actual Java JVM and that PHP and JavaScript have very little built in functionality and mostly function by running local binaries, storing the output, and then passing that output to another local binary.Just because it's printed on dead trees, even from a "reputable" source, doesn't mean that everything in it is accurate and can be trusted.
You should always have several sources and compare information between those sources to come to your conclusions.
I see nothing wrong with including wikipedia as just one of many sources that you use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506948</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>shaker-cat</author>
	<datestamp>1268832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that seems typical, so lazy these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that seems typical , so lazy these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that seems typical, so lazy these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507178</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>smitty97</author>
	<datestamp>1268834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources. I hate that.</p></div><p>[citation needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim , without citing sources .
I hate that .
[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources.
I hate that.
[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31521034</id>
	<title>How they use Wikipedia</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1268917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's be realistic, they use copy and paste like everyone else</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be realistic , they use copy and paste like everyone else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be realistic, they use copy and paste like everyone else</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507146</id>
	<title>Re:reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268833740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rsquo;d wait until after the essay was graded, just to be on the safe side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    d wait until after the essay was graded , just to be on the safe side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’d wait until after the essay was graded, just to be on the safe side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31513490</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with limited plagiarism?</title>
	<author>anexkahn</author>
	<datestamp>1268856900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as you use quotes and cite the source I see no problem in copying sentences.   But it is going a bit far when you copy the whole article and put quotes at the beginning and end<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you use quotes and cite the source I see no problem in copying sentences .
But it is going a bit far when you copy the whole article and put quotes at the beginning and end : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you use quotes and cite the source I see no problem in copying sentences.
But it is going a bit far when you copy the whole article and put quotes at the beginning and end :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998</id>
	<title>Euler Angles</title>
	<author>professionalfurryele</author>
	<datestamp>1268832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that if I go to wikipedia, type "Euler Angles" in the search box and hit enter, then all the information I need to get me started solving whatever problem I'm working on in rigid body dynamics is right there.</p><p>If the page was wrong, I'd recognise it. I know what Euler Angles are and can recognise the z-x-z convention. If it has been weeks or months since I last used them however, I go and I look them up. It's faster than a textbook or trip to the library and more likely to pay off than a google search.</p><p>Likewise if I need a quick overview of a subject, I fire up wikipedia. It's the equivalent of asking your mate 'Dave' who did a bit of work in the topic a while back about something. Sure you might not be able to trust everything he says because his memory is a little cloudy but he knows this really good text on the subject that is authoritative and he knows you are a lay person so he mentions the bare basics that aren't always in the more advanced texts.</p><p>I'm glad we have a study now which suggests this is how students are using this resource. The reason you don't cite wikipedia or use it as a serious reference text is the same reason you don't cite Britannica. It's an encyclopaedia! A really, really, really good encyclopaedia but none-the-less an encyclopaedia. The reason it's popular isn't because it is being misused, it's because unlike most encyclopaedia it actually contains a decent amount of useful information on a broad range of topics. The only reason we haven't had this 'problem' in the past is that until wikipedia encyclopaedia were, due to technical limitations, pretty crappy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that if I go to wikipedia , type " Euler Angles " in the search box and hit enter , then all the information I need to get me started solving whatever problem I 'm working on in rigid body dynamics is right there.If the page was wrong , I 'd recognise it .
I know what Euler Angles are and can recognise the z-x-z convention .
If it has been weeks or months since I last used them however , I go and I look them up .
It 's faster than a textbook or trip to the library and more likely to pay off than a google search.Likewise if I need a quick overview of a subject , I fire up wikipedia .
It 's the equivalent of asking your mate 'Dave ' who did a bit of work in the topic a while back about something .
Sure you might not be able to trust everything he says because his memory is a little cloudy but he knows this really good text on the subject that is authoritative and he knows you are a lay person so he mentions the bare basics that are n't always in the more advanced texts.I 'm glad we have a study now which suggests this is how students are using this resource .
The reason you do n't cite wikipedia or use it as a serious reference text is the same reason you do n't cite Britannica .
It 's an encyclopaedia !
A really , really , really good encyclopaedia but none-the-less an encyclopaedia .
The reason it 's popular is n't because it is being misused , it 's because unlike most encyclopaedia it actually contains a decent amount of useful information on a broad range of topics .
The only reason we have n't had this 'problem ' in the past is that until wikipedia encyclopaedia were , due to technical limitations , pretty crappy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that if I go to wikipedia, type "Euler Angles" in the search box and hit enter, then all the information I need to get me started solving whatever problem I'm working on in rigid body dynamics is right there.If the page was wrong, I'd recognise it.
I know what Euler Angles are and can recognise the z-x-z convention.
If it has been weeks or months since I last used them however, I go and I look them up.
It's faster than a textbook or trip to the library and more likely to pay off than a google search.Likewise if I need a quick overview of a subject, I fire up wikipedia.
It's the equivalent of asking your mate 'Dave' who did a bit of work in the topic a while back about something.
Sure you might not be able to trust everything he says because his memory is a little cloudy but he knows this really good text on the subject that is authoritative and he knows you are a lay person so he mentions the bare basics that aren't always in the more advanced texts.I'm glad we have a study now which suggests this is how students are using this resource.
The reason you don't cite wikipedia or use it as a serious reference text is the same reason you don't cite Britannica.
It's an encyclopaedia!
A really, really, really good encyclopaedia but none-the-less an encyclopaedia.
The reason it's popular isn't because it is being misused, it's because unlike most encyclopaedia it actually contains a decent amount of useful information on a broad range of topics.
The only reason we haven't had this 'problem' in the past is that until wikipedia encyclopaedia were, due to technical limitations, pretty crappy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508416</id>
	<title>Leave Wikipedia Alone!</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268840460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate the faux-intellectual discussions and critiques of Wikipedia. This morning I wanted to figure out which Rolling Stones singles would have been better song choices on American Idol last night so I fired up Wikipedia. There's more information there (and easier to find) than on The Rolling Stones' own web site.</p><p>Wikipedia is used for non-academic endeavors as well as being a decent starting point for finding primary sources.</p><p>Kids (high school or college) who plagiarize anything from the web by copying and pasting are just stupid and deserve to be kicked from academia...I'm not sure why everyone feels the need to blame Wikipedia for society's ills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the faux-intellectual discussions and critiques of Wikipedia .
This morning I wanted to figure out which Rolling Stones singles would have been better song choices on American Idol last night so I fired up Wikipedia .
There 's more information there ( and easier to find ) than on The Rolling Stones ' own web site.Wikipedia is used for non-academic endeavors as well as being a decent starting point for finding primary sources.Kids ( high school or college ) who plagiarize anything from the web by copying and pasting are just stupid and deserve to be kicked from academia...I 'm not sure why everyone feels the need to blame Wikipedia for society 's ills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate the faux-intellectual discussions and critiques of Wikipedia.
This morning I wanted to figure out which Rolling Stones singles would have been better song choices on American Idol last night so I fired up Wikipedia.
There's more information there (and easier to find) than on The Rolling Stones' own web site.Wikipedia is used for non-academic endeavors as well as being a decent starting point for finding primary sources.Kids (high school or college) who plagiarize anything from the web by copying and pasting are just stupid and deserve to be kicked from academia...I'm not sure why everyone feels the need to blame Wikipedia for society's ills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507090</id>
	<title>i'm more worried</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268833260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when screenwriters use it</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Treasure:\_Book\_of\_Secrets" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Treasure:\_Book\_of\_Secrets</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>or bookwriters</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Lost\_Symbol" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Lost\_Symbol</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>i can live with some students with shallow term papers. but aren't some books and movies, like the ones linked to above, nothing more than the condensation from a late night session of following wikipedia links? worse than bookwriting/ screenwriting by committee of frat boys</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when screenwriters use ithttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National \ _Treasure : \ _Book \ _of \ _Secrets [ wikipedia.org ] or bookwritershttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Lost \ _Symbol [ wikipedia.org ] i can live with some students with shallow term papers .
but are n't some books and movies , like the ones linked to above , nothing more than the condensation from a late night session of following wikipedia links ?
worse than bookwriting/ screenwriting by committee of frat boys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when screenwriters use ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Treasure:\_Book\_of\_Secrets [wikipedia.org]or bookwritershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Lost\_Symbol [wikipedia.org]i can live with some students with shallow term papers.
but aren't some books and movies, like the ones linked to above, nothing more than the condensation from a late night session of following wikipedia links?
worse than bookwriting/ screenwriting by committee of frat boys</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511668</id>
	<title>Re:reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1268851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia?</p></div><p>A close friend of mine who is a professor in the humanities actually gave his students an assignment a couple years back to contribute new articles on significant works in the field that hadn't yet been covered in Wikipedia (or were just stubs).  He checked them for accuracy once they were submitted.  Everybody wins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I write an essay for my class , and then include parts of it into Wikipedia ? A close friend of mine who is a professor in the humanities actually gave his students an assignment a couple years back to contribute new articles on significant works in the field that had n't yet been covered in Wikipedia ( or were just stubs ) .
He checked them for accuracy once they were submitted .
Everybody wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia?A close friend of mine who is a professor in the humanities actually gave his students an assignment a couple years back to contribute new articles on significant works in the field that hadn't yet been covered in Wikipedia (or were just stubs).
He checked them for accuracy once they were submitted.
Everybody wins.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508394</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>thechao</author>
	<datestamp>1268840400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was about to call BS on this; however, after reading the links it me want to read "Hamlet" in the original Klingon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to call BS on this ; however , after reading the links it me want to read " Hamlet " in the original Klingon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was about to call BS on this; however, after reading the links it me want to read "Hamlet" in the original Klingon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512908</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1268854860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of busting them for plagiarism, simply tell them that you don't buy the conclusion in their paper because they didn't present you with any verifiable evidence.  F</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of busting them for plagiarism , simply tell them that you do n't buy the conclusion in their paper because they did n't present you with any verifiable evidence .
F</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of busting them for plagiarism, simply tell them that you don't buy the conclusion in their paper because they didn't present you with any verifiable evidence.
F</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</id>
	<title>The China Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My issue as of late with Wikipedia is the infiltration of Chinese history into the pages.</p><p>Most major inventions are credited to first being invented by the Chinese, regardless how little evidence there is, or whether the invention was anything more than a dream, drawing, or element in a painting.</p><p>Moveable type? Invented by the Chinese.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable\_type" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable\_type</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The automobile? Invented for a Chinese emperor.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The Roman Abacus? "May have been inspired by" the Chinese.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>In fact there's a whole list of claims of Chinese "inventions" on Wikipedia that I kind of find dubious, since most of the reference don't exist or suggest otherwise.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese\_inventions" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese\_inventions</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>If our students are using Wikipedia as a basis for papers, they are likely just repeating subtle propaganda without knowing it.</p><p>Try looking up the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Did you mean the "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My issue as of late with Wikipedia is the infiltration of Chinese history into the pages.Most major inventions are credited to first being invented by the Chinese , regardless how little evidence there is , or whether the invention was anything more than a dream , drawing , or element in a painting.Moveable type ?
Invented by the Chinese.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable \ _type [ wikipedia.org ] The automobile ?
Invented for a Chinese emperor.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile [ wikipedia.org ] The Roman Abacus ?
" May have been inspired by " the Chinese.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus [ wikipedia.org ] In fact there 's a whole list of claims of Chinese " inventions " on Wikipedia that I kind of find dubious , since most of the reference do n't exist or suggest otherwise.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese \ _inventions [ wikipedia.org ] If our students are using Wikipedia as a basis for papers , they are likely just repeating subtle propaganda without knowing it.Try looking up the Tiananmen Square Massacre .
Did you mean the " Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My issue as of late with Wikipedia is the infiltration of Chinese history into the pages.Most major inventions are credited to first being invented by the Chinese, regardless how little evidence there is, or whether the invention was anything more than a dream, drawing, or element in a painting.Moveable type?
Invented by the Chinese.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable\_type [wikipedia.org]The automobile?
Invented for a Chinese emperor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile [wikipedia.org]The Roman Abacus?
"May have been inspired by" the Chinese.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus [wikipedia.org]In fact there's a whole list of claims of Chinese "inventions" on Wikipedia that I kind of find dubious, since most of the reference don't exist or suggest otherwise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese\_inventions [wikipedia.org]If our students are using Wikipedia as a basis for papers, they are likely just repeating subtle propaganda without knowing it.Try looking up the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
Did you mean the "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508502</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>furbyhater</author>
	<datestamp>1268840760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Movable type: Definitely first invented by the Chinese, see sources.<br> <br>
Automobile: A (western) jesuit designed a steam-powered vessel for the emperor, nobody knows if it has ever been built (clearly stated in the article).<br> <br>
Abacus: What should I say? Seems like the Chinses were first.<br> <br>
Do you have a problem admitting that the Chinese made some inventions before the west?<br>
Let's just give credit where credit is due.<br>
Just because your history class told you otherwise because it ignored inventions made by other civilisations than the "west" doesn't mean that the wiki articles aren't true.<br>
You call it "infiltration of Chinsese history", I call it "accurate and complete information".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Movable type : Definitely first invented by the Chinese , see sources .
Automobile : A ( western ) jesuit designed a steam-powered vessel for the emperor , nobody knows if it has ever been built ( clearly stated in the article ) .
Abacus : What should I say ?
Seems like the Chinses were first .
Do you have a problem admitting that the Chinese made some inventions before the west ?
Let 's just give credit where credit is due .
Just because your history class told you otherwise because it ignored inventions made by other civilisations than the " west " does n't mean that the wiki articles are n't true .
You call it " infiltration of Chinsese history " , I call it " accurate and complete information " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Movable type: Definitely first invented by the Chinese, see sources.
Automobile: A (western) jesuit designed a steam-powered vessel for the emperor, nobody knows if it has ever been built (clearly stated in the article).
Abacus: What should I say?
Seems like the Chinses were first.
Do you have a problem admitting that the Chinese made some inventions before the west?
Let's just give credit where credit is due.
Just because your history class told you otherwise because it ignored inventions made by other civilisations than the "west" doesn't mean that the wiki articles aren't true.
You call it "infiltration of Chinsese history", I call it "accurate and complete information".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507500</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources. I hate that.
<p>
Digg sez: This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim , without citing sources .
I hate that .
Digg sez : This exact comment has already been posted .
Try to be more original.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources.
I hate that.
Digg sez: This exact comment has already been posted.
Try to be more original...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509098</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>Eevee</author>
	<datestamp>1268843280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Moveable type? Invented by the Chinese.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Because it was. You have a source for movable type earlier than the 11th century, step right up.</p><blockquote><div><p>The automobile? Invented for a Chinese emperor.</p></div></blockquote><p>
By a Belgian. You know, by somebody who isn't Chinese. In fact, if the Chinese were to use Ferdinand Verbiest as propaganda, they would be going the wrong way because he showed the Chinese that western astronomy was superior to Chinese astronomy.</p><blockquote><div><p>The Roman Abacus? "May have been inspired by" the Chinese.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The wikipedia article only suggests a possibility of inspiration of one from the other, with no mention of which direction the concept traveled. In addition, the article shows a much longer history of western designs--in particular, the Persians are listad as using them 400 years earlier and having trade with both China and Rome. So, even if one were to claim that the Chinese design inspired the Roman, it would merely have been on the arrangement of beads rather than the actual concepts.

</p><p>Quite frankly, if these examples are the best you can do for propaganda, you need to increase your medication levels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moveable type ?
Invented by the Chinese .
Because it was .
You have a source for movable type earlier than the 11th century , step right up.The automobile ?
Invented for a Chinese emperor .
By a Belgian .
You know , by somebody who is n't Chinese .
In fact , if the Chinese were to use Ferdinand Verbiest as propaganda , they would be going the wrong way because he showed the Chinese that western astronomy was superior to Chinese astronomy.The Roman Abacus ?
" May have been inspired by " the Chinese .
The wikipedia article only suggests a possibility of inspiration of one from the other , with no mention of which direction the concept traveled .
In addition , the article shows a much longer history of western designs--in particular , the Persians are listad as using them 400 years earlier and having trade with both China and Rome .
So , even if one were to claim that the Chinese design inspired the Roman , it would merely have been on the arrangement of beads rather than the actual concepts .
Quite frankly , if these examples are the best you can do for propaganda , you need to increase your medication levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moveable type?
Invented by the Chinese.
Because it was.
You have a source for movable type earlier than the 11th century, step right up.The automobile?
Invented for a Chinese emperor.
By a Belgian.
You know, by somebody who isn't Chinese.
In fact, if the Chinese were to use Ferdinand Verbiest as propaganda, they would be going the wrong way because he showed the Chinese that western astronomy was superior to Chinese astronomy.The Roman Abacus?
"May have been inspired by" the Chinese.
The wikipedia article only suggests a possibility of inspiration of one from the other, with no mention of which direction the concept traveled.
In addition, the article shows a much longer history of western designs--in particular, the Persians are listad as using them 400 years earlier and having trade with both China and Rome.
So, even if one were to claim that the Chinese design inspired the Roman, it would merely have been on the arrangement of beads rather than the actual concepts.
Quite frankly, if these examples are the best you can do for propaganda, you need to increase your medication levels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506922</id>
	<title>Wikipedia tells me...</title>
	<author>kiehlster</author>
	<datestamp>1268832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>that you must be gathering your information from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching\_with\_Wikipedia" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].  I'm pretty sure that's what that Wikipedia article is saying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that you must be gathering your information from Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .
I 'm pretty sure that 's what that Wikipedia article is saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that you must be gathering your information from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
I'm pretty sure that's what that Wikipedia article is saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506996</id>
	<title>credibility</title>
	<author>mugurel</author>
	<datestamp>1268832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In part the credibility of information maybe an external factor, determined by its origin and the media through which it is transmitted. But I think that part of the credibility is due to the information itself. By reading a wikipedia article, you typically get quite a good impression of its credibility, by the stylistic quality of the text, it's structure, presence/absence of references, and most importantly, the quality of the argumentation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In part the credibility of information maybe an external factor , determined by its origin and the media through which it is transmitted .
But I think that part of the credibility is due to the information itself .
By reading a wikipedia article , you typically get quite a good impression of its credibility , by the stylistic quality of the text , it 's structure , presence/absence of references , and most importantly , the quality of the argumentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In part the credibility of information maybe an external factor, determined by its origin and the media through which it is transmitted.
But I think that part of the credibility is due to the information itself.
By reading a wikipedia article, you typically get quite a good impression of its credibility, by the stylistic quality of the text, it's structure, presence/absence of references, and most importantly, the quality of the argumentation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509990</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268846820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same problem that appears in pretty much any article on China from a western newspaper. Like clockwork, a significant chunk of the comments will be from Chinese who claim that the article, and therefore the newspaper, is biased against China, that whichever country in which the newspaper is published in never gets criticized even though it committed far worse sins, and that China in general is much better and that no one who is not Chinese cannot fully understand China and the Chinese.</p><p>I fully expect that the small minority of radical Chinese nationalists (which, mind you, still probably number at least a few million) will inject their rhetoric into anything resembling Chinese criticism or even anything that isn't laudatory enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same problem that appears in pretty much any article on China from a western newspaper .
Like clockwork , a significant chunk of the comments will be from Chinese who claim that the article , and therefore the newspaper , is biased against China , that whichever country in which the newspaper is published in never gets criticized even though it committed far worse sins , and that China in general is much better and that no one who is not Chinese can not fully understand China and the Chinese.I fully expect that the small minority of radical Chinese nationalists ( which , mind you , still probably number at least a few million ) will inject their rhetoric into anything resembling Chinese criticism or even anything that is n't laudatory enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same problem that appears in pretty much any article on China from a western newspaper.
Like clockwork, a significant chunk of the comments will be from Chinese who claim that the article, and therefore the newspaper, is biased against China, that whichever country in which the newspaper is published in never gets criticized even though it committed far worse sins, and that China in general is much better and that no one who is not Chinese cannot fully understand China and the Chinese.I fully expect that the small minority of radical Chinese nationalists (which, mind you, still probably number at least a few million) will inject their rhetoric into anything resembling Chinese criticism or even anything that isn't laudatory enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508770</id>
	<title>Re:As a source of sources, it is invaluable</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1268841900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it also depends on the topics you are researching. I've found it great for hard science topics. Look up one of those carbon-carbon-temp steel charts(sorry the name eludes me after 4 years), it is going to be accurate. The page on the culture of Pakistan is likely to have a lot of mistakes in it. It really depends on the topic. I tended to use wiki a a broad overview of the topic, and then read the sources at the bottom of the page and used those on my papers. The hardest paper i had to write was the one about how tachinite is made, it needed too many sources, I'm basicly 3rd-5th gen Minnesota iron range, i know how the mines work, how the peltizer works, etc etc etc, out of my head, all from talk and walk throughs of mines. no sources needed to write a paper, but it needed 6 or something and 2 had to be magizines/newspapers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it also depends on the topics you are researching .
I 've found it great for hard science topics .
Look up one of those carbon-carbon-temp steel charts ( sorry the name eludes me after 4 years ) , it is going to be accurate .
The page on the culture of Pakistan is likely to have a lot of mistakes in it .
It really depends on the topic .
I tended to use wiki a a broad overview of the topic , and then read the sources at the bottom of the page and used those on my papers .
The hardest paper i had to write was the one about how tachinite is made , it needed too many sources , I 'm basicly 3rd-5th gen Minnesota iron range , i know how the mines work , how the peltizer works , etc etc etc , out of my head , all from talk and walk throughs of mines .
no sources needed to write a paper , but it needed 6 or something and 2 had to be magizines/newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it also depends on the topics you are researching.
I've found it great for hard science topics.
Look up one of those carbon-carbon-temp steel charts(sorry the name eludes me after 4 years), it is going to be accurate.
The page on the culture of Pakistan is likely to have a lot of mistakes in it.
It really depends on the topic.
I tended to use wiki a a broad overview of the topic, and then read the sources at the bottom of the page and used those on my papers.
The hardest paper i had to write was the one about how tachinite is made, it needed too many sources, I'm basicly 3rd-5th gen Minnesota iron range, i know how the mines work, how the peltizer works, etc etc etc, out of my head, all from talk and walk throughs of mines.
no sources needed to write a paper, but it needed 6 or something and 2 had to be magizines/newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506968</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1268832300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ctrl+c<br>Ctrl+v</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ctrl + cCtrl + v</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ctrl+cCtrl+v</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506990</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1268832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, college students use the Internet to cheat on research papers.<br><br>News at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , college students use the Internet to cheat on research papers.News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, college students use the Internet to cheat on research papers.News at 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507106</id>
	<title>Re:Euler Angles</title>
	<author>getuid()</author>
	<datestamp>1268833440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck with getting your own essay recognized  by the wikipedia admins as a "credible source" for a wikipedia article you're writing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with getting your own essay recognized by the wikipedia admins as a " credible source " for a wikipedia article you 're writing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with getting your own essay recognized  by the wikipedia admins as a "credible source" for a wikipedia article you're writing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</id>
	<title>Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources. I hate that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim , without citing sources .
I hate that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources.
I hate that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511506</id>
	<title>Re:Credibility</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1268850840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Primary sources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Primary sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Primary sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>986151</author>
	<datestamp>1268834580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources. I hate that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim , without citing sources .
I hate that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources.
I hate that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508630</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia for engineers?</title>
	<author>truthsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1268841300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to grow a <a href="http://docforge.com/wiki/Main\_Page" title="docforge.com">wiki for software developers</a> [docforge.com], but it has a long way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to grow a wiki for software developers [ docforge.com ] , but it has a long way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to grow a wiki for software developers [docforge.com], but it has a long way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508178</id>
	<title>Wikipedia as an expert</title>
	<author>Sarten-X</author>
	<datestamp>1268839560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider Wikipedia to be just as credible as a face-to-face interview with an expert in a given field. Given how articles are (generally) written by citing field experts, this makes sense.</p><p>The basic information will be entirely correct, but the most arcane details should be verified elsewhere. Furthermore, it will now and then include some crazy detail that nobody else agrees with, which should be passed off as fringe theories. It is credible, but not infallible.</p><p>I'm sorry if this comes as an insult to experts who think they are infallible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider Wikipedia to be just as credible as a face-to-face interview with an expert in a given field .
Given how articles are ( generally ) written by citing field experts , this makes sense.The basic information will be entirely correct , but the most arcane details should be verified elsewhere .
Furthermore , it will now and then include some crazy detail that nobody else agrees with , which should be passed off as fringe theories .
It is credible , but not infallible.I 'm sorry if this comes as an insult to experts who think they are infallible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider Wikipedia to be just as credible as a face-to-face interview with an expert in a given field.
Given how articles are (generally) written by citing field experts, this makes sense.The basic information will be entirely correct, but the most arcane details should be verified elsewhere.
Furthermore, it will now and then include some crazy detail that nobody else agrees with, which should be passed off as fringe theories.
It is credible, but not infallible.I'm sorry if this comes as an insult to experts who think they are infallible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31514482</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268817420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are probably like my highschool buddies who copied verbatim from printed encyclopedias from the Library.  I fail to see anything specific about Wikipedia in this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are probably like my highschool buddies who copied verbatim from printed encyclopedias from the Library .
I fail to see anything specific about Wikipedia in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are probably like my highschool buddies who copied verbatim from printed encyclopedias from the Library.
I fail to see anything specific about Wikipedia in this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508354</id>
	<title>My English 201 Research Paper... Thanks Wikipedia!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268840220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Timmy Long
<br>Professor Martha Taco
<br>English 201
<br> <br>
Mark Twain
<br> <br>
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 &ndash; April 21, 1910),[3]  well-known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. Twain is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn  (1884), which has been called "the Great American Novel",[4]  and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer  (1876). He is extensively quoted.[5][6]  Twain was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty.
<br> <br>
From 1901, soon after his return from Europe, until his death in 1910, Twain was vice-president of the American Anti-Imperialist League,[58]  which opposed the annexation of the Philippines  by the United States and had "tens of thousands of members".[25]  He wrote many political pamphlets for the organization. The Incident in the Philippines, posthumously published in 1924, was in response to the Moro Crater Massacre, in which six hundred Moros were killed. Many of his neglected and previously uncollected writings on anti-imperialism appeared for the first time in book form in 1992.[59]
<br> <br>
Twain was critical of imperialism in other countries as well. In Following the Equator, Twain expresses "hatred and condemnation of imperialism of all stripes".[25] He was highly critical of European imperialism, notably of Cecil Rhodes, who greatly expanded the British Empire, and of Leopold II, King of the Belgians.[25] King Leopold's Soliloquy is a stinging political satire about his private colony, the Congo Free State. Reports of outrageous exploitation and grotesque abuses led to widespread international protest in the early 1900s, arguably the first large-scale human rights movement. In the soliloquy, the King argues that bringing Christianity to the country outweighs a little starvation. Leopold's rubber gatherers were tortured, maimed and slaughtered until the turn of the century, when the conscience of the Western world forced Brussels to call a halt.[citation needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Timmy Long Professor Martha Taco English 201 Mark Twain Samuel Langhorne Clemens ( November 30 , 1835    April 21 , 1910 ) , [ 3 ] well-known by his pen name Mark Twain , was an American author and humorist .
Twain is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ( 1884 ) , which has been called " the Great American Novel " , [ 4 ] and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer ( 1876 ) .
He is extensively quoted .
[ 5 ] [ 6 ] Twain was a friend to presidents , artists , industrialists , and European royalty .
From 1901 , soon after his return from Europe , until his death in 1910 , Twain was vice-president of the American Anti-Imperialist League , [ 58 ] which opposed the annexation of the Philippines by the United States and had " tens of thousands of members " .
[ 25 ] He wrote many political pamphlets for the organization .
The Incident in the Philippines , posthumously published in 1924 , was in response to the Moro Crater Massacre , in which six hundred Moros were killed .
Many of his neglected and previously uncollected writings on anti-imperialism appeared for the first time in book form in 1992 .
[ 59 ] Twain was critical of imperialism in other countries as well .
In Following the Equator , Twain expresses " hatred and condemnation of imperialism of all stripes " .
[ 25 ] He was highly critical of European imperialism , notably of Cecil Rhodes , who greatly expanded the British Empire , and of Leopold II , King of the Belgians .
[ 25 ] King Leopold 's Soliloquy is a stinging political satire about his private colony , the Congo Free State .
Reports of outrageous exploitation and grotesque abuses led to widespread international protest in the early 1900s , arguably the first large-scale human rights movement .
In the soliloquy , the King argues that bringing Christianity to the country outweighs a little starvation .
Leopold 's rubber gatherers were tortured , maimed and slaughtered until the turn of the century , when the conscience of the Western world forced Brussels to call a halt .
[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Timmy Long
Professor Martha Taco
English 201
 
Mark Twain
 
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910),[3]  well-known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist.
Twain is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn  (1884), which has been called "the Great American Novel",[4]  and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer  (1876).
He is extensively quoted.
[5][6]  Twain was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty.
From 1901, soon after his return from Europe, until his death in 1910, Twain was vice-president of the American Anti-Imperialist League,[58]  which opposed the annexation of the Philippines  by the United States and had "tens of thousands of members".
[25]  He wrote many political pamphlets for the organization.
The Incident in the Philippines, posthumously published in 1924, was in response to the Moro Crater Massacre, in which six hundred Moros were killed.
Many of his neglected and previously uncollected writings on anti-imperialism appeared for the first time in book form in 1992.
[59]
 
Twain was critical of imperialism in other countries as well.
In Following the Equator, Twain expresses "hatred and condemnation of imperialism of all stripes".
[25] He was highly critical of European imperialism, notably of Cecil Rhodes, who greatly expanded the British Empire, and of Leopold II, King of the Belgians.
[25] King Leopold's Soliloquy is a stinging political satire about his private colony, the Congo Free State.
Reports of outrageous exploitation and grotesque abuses led to widespread international protest in the early 1900s, arguably the first large-scale human rights movement.
In the soliloquy, the King argues that bringing Christianity to the country outweighs a little starvation.
Leopold's rubber gatherers were tortured, maimed and slaughtered until the turn of the century, when the conscience of the Western world forced Brussels to call a halt.
[citation needed]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509366</id>
	<title>Per subject credibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like a lot here, I use WP to start off. I've since found that for scientific and technical subjects, it is great, not exhaustive but quite good. Of course some articles are exceptional and some are just useless.</p><p>But for historical, sociological, religious, political, etc. subjects, it is very frequently... I would say biased, but in a lot of cases, manipulated would seem a more accurate word. Seems that a wide group of editors or collaborators go for an agenda instead of for a fair attempt at truth, even if it doesn't seem to match with their ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like a lot here , I use WP to start off .
I 've since found that for scientific and technical subjects , it is great , not exhaustive but quite good .
Of course some articles are exceptional and some are just useless.But for historical , sociological , religious , political , etc .
subjects , it is very frequently... I would say biased , but in a lot of cases , manipulated would seem a more accurate word .
Seems that a wide group of editors or collaborators go for an agenda instead of for a fair attempt at truth , even if it does n't seem to match with their ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like a lot here, I use WP to start off.
I've since found that for scientific and technical subjects, it is great, not exhaustive but quite good.
Of course some articles are exceptional and some are just useless.But for historical, sociological, religious, political, etc.
subjects, it is very frequently... I would say biased, but in a lot of cases, manipulated would seem a more accurate word.
Seems that a wide group of editors or collaborators go for an agenda instead of for a fair attempt at truth, even if it doesn't seem to match with their ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31515292</id>
	<title>Re:As a source of sources, it is invaluable</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1268820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And as for the "it's not accurate enough for research", I find that it's rarely REALLY wrong.</p></div><p>It depends.  Mainstream science and math articles -- you're probably right.  There's an occasional error or vandal, but by-and-large, you have quality information.  But step off the beaten path into articles on even major figures or historical events in the humanities, and you're very likely to see scholarship that's 50 years out-of-date or more.</p><p>

And I'm not talking about some crazy postmodern interpretations of the humanities -- I mean things like biographies of major historical figures that everyone's heard of where there are factual errors or historical arguments that simply don't make sense anymore given recent scholarship.</p><p>

Sometimes these things are not really <i>wrong</i> per se, but they are still often grossly misleading.  Often the more obscure humanities articles are maintained by small cliques of editors who are wedded to their own interpretation of the field, which generally is based on outdated scholarship, a few popular sources (sometimes even off-topic sources; certainly no specialist literature), and/or fringe ideas.  I've even seen arguments break out between editors about the <i>very existence</i> of a major subfield in a humanities discipline that has half a dozen journals devoted to it and has been at the center of the discipline for decades.</p><p>

When you have editors going around deleting articles because they don't even believe that entire subdisciplines exist, it's hard to trust the details or scholarship in any of the articles relating to such a discipline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as for the " it 's not accurate enough for research " , I find that it 's rarely REALLY wrong.It depends .
Mainstream science and math articles -- you 're probably right .
There 's an occasional error or vandal , but by-and-large , you have quality information .
But step off the beaten path into articles on even major figures or historical events in the humanities , and you 're very likely to see scholarship that 's 50 years out-of-date or more .
And I 'm not talking about some crazy postmodern interpretations of the humanities -- I mean things like biographies of major historical figures that everyone 's heard of where there are factual errors or historical arguments that simply do n't make sense anymore given recent scholarship .
Sometimes these things are not really wrong per se , but they are still often grossly misleading .
Often the more obscure humanities articles are maintained by small cliques of editors who are wedded to their own interpretation of the field , which generally is based on outdated scholarship , a few popular sources ( sometimes even off-topic sources ; certainly no specialist literature ) , and/or fringe ideas .
I 've even seen arguments break out between editors about the very existence of a major subfield in a humanities discipline that has half a dozen journals devoted to it and has been at the center of the discipline for decades .
When you have editors going around deleting articles because they do n't even believe that entire subdisciplines exist , it 's hard to trust the details or scholarship in any of the articles relating to such a discipline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as for the "it's not accurate enough for research", I find that it's rarely REALLY wrong.It depends.
Mainstream science and math articles -- you're probably right.
There's an occasional error or vandal, but by-and-large, you have quality information.
But step off the beaten path into articles on even major figures or historical events in the humanities, and you're very likely to see scholarship that's 50 years out-of-date or more.
And I'm not talking about some crazy postmodern interpretations of the humanities -- I mean things like biographies of major historical figures that everyone's heard of where there are factual errors or historical arguments that simply don't make sense anymore given recent scholarship.
Sometimes these things are not really wrong per se, but they are still often grossly misleading.
Often the more obscure humanities articles are maintained by small cliques of editors who are wedded to their own interpretation of the field, which generally is based on outdated scholarship, a few popular sources (sometimes even off-topic sources; certainly no specialist literature), and/or fringe ideas.
I've even seen arguments break out between editors about the very existence of a major subfield in a humanities discipline that has half a dozen journals devoted to it and has been at the center of the discipline for decades.
When you have editors going around deleting articles because they don't even believe that entire subdisciplines exist, it's hard to trust the details or scholarship in any of the articles relating to such a discipline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508390</id>
	<title>Re:Credibility</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268840400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>it has some, but not deep, credibility</p></div></blockquote><p>Then again, what sources do?</p></div></blockquote><p>Established journals (peer reviewed or not as appropriate to the field) and/or news sources relative to the field.  Acknowledged experts within the field.  Acknowledged texts relative to the field.<br>
&nbsp; <br>If Wikipedia has any credibility at all, it's because it has cribbed from these sources (among many others).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it has some , but not deep , credibilityThen again , what sources do ? Established journals ( peer reviewed or not as appropriate to the field ) and/or news sources relative to the field .
Acknowledged experts within the field .
Acknowledged texts relative to the field .
  If Wikipedia has any credibility at all , it 's because it has cribbed from these sources ( among many others ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it has some, but not deep, credibilityThen again, what sources do?Established journals (peer reviewed or not as appropriate to the field) and/or news sources relative to the field.
Acknowledged experts within the field.
Acknowledged texts relative to the field.
  If Wikipedia has any credibility at all, it's because it has cribbed from these sources (among many others).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507358</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia is an important research tool</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1268835360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes. I don't understand the implicit criticism in the article. *All* reference works are a "quick way to get started." No serious college student would write a research paper that cites an encyclopedia article as a primary source (maybe in ENG 101, but certainly not at anything above that). Encyclopedias, including both Britannica and Wikipedia, are meant to give a broad overview of a topic and suggest some additional sources for further research. IMHO, Wikipedia does a fine job of that (and I used to be in academics, so I know a thing or two about research). Would I accept it as the be-all, end-all word on a subject? Of course I wouldn't. But the same goes for any reference work (Britannica articles are written by biased academics too, you know, not by some objective god).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I do n't understand the implicit criticism in the article .
* All * reference works are a " quick way to get started .
" No serious college student would write a research paper that cites an encyclopedia article as a primary source ( maybe in ENG 101 , but certainly not at anything above that ) .
Encyclopedias , including both Britannica and Wikipedia , are meant to give a broad overview of a topic and suggest some additional sources for further research .
IMHO , Wikipedia does a fine job of that ( and I used to be in academics , so I know a thing or two about research ) .
Would I accept it as the be-all , end-all word on a subject ?
Of course I would n't .
But the same goes for any reference work ( Britannica articles are written by biased academics too , you know , not by some objective god ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I don't understand the implicit criticism in the article.
*All* reference works are a "quick way to get started.
" No serious college student would write a research paper that cites an encyclopedia article as a primary source (maybe in ENG 101, but certainly not at anything above that).
Encyclopedias, including both Britannica and Wikipedia, are meant to give a broad overview of a topic and suggest some additional sources for further research.
IMHO, Wikipedia does a fine job of that (and I used to be in academics, so I know a thing or two about research).
Would I accept it as the be-all, end-all word on a subject?
Of course I wouldn't.
But the same goes for any reference work (Britannica articles are written by biased academics too, you know, not by some objective god).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508094</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia for engineers?</title>
	<author>BergZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268839320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like you are describing:
<a href="http://www.wikihow.com/" title="wikihow.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wikihow.com/</a> [wikihow.com]

Now we just need more engineers &amp; technicians contributing to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like you are describing : http : //www.wikihow.com/ [ wikihow.com ] Now we just need more engineers &amp; technicians contributing to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like you are describing:
http://www.wikihow.com/ [wikihow.com]

Now we just need more engineers &amp; technicians contributing to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507236</id>
	<title>Re:reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>Saint Fnordius</author>
	<datestamp>1268834520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are worried about that, then state upfront that you have added to the Wikipedia entry, providing a hardcopy (or at least a screenshot) of the history page. Most instructors will accept that, some might check the history page themselves to make sure you really did make a contribution that wasn't merely cosmetic, and a few might still mark you for plagiarism simply because there are bullies amongst teachers as well.</p><p>Long story short, if you're worried about that, then hold off on editing the Wiki entry until your paper's been graded. If you did it already, document your changes and submit them before your teacher asks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are worried about that , then state upfront that you have added to the Wikipedia entry , providing a hardcopy ( or at least a screenshot ) of the history page .
Most instructors will accept that , some might check the history page themselves to make sure you really did make a contribution that was n't merely cosmetic , and a few might still mark you for plagiarism simply because there are bullies amongst teachers as well.Long story short , if you 're worried about that , then hold off on editing the Wiki entry until your paper 's been graded .
If you did it already , document your changes and submit them before your teacher asks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are worried about that, then state upfront that you have added to the Wikipedia entry, providing a hardcopy (or at least a screenshot) of the history page.
Most instructors will accept that, some might check the history page themselves to make sure you really did make a contribution that wasn't merely cosmetic, and a few might still mark you for plagiarism simply because there are bullies amongst teachers as well.Long story short, if you're worried about that, then hold off on editing the Wiki entry until your paper's been graded.
If you did it already, document your changes and submit them before your teacher asks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507590</id>
	<title>References etc etc etc.</title>
	<author>SirDrinksAlot</author>
	<datestamp>1268836680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it would be better to use Wikipedia as a source to find reference. You find what you're looking for on Wikipedia, then follow the references. If there arent any references then you should probably move on anyways because it's unsubstantiated.  IMO this is what makes Wikipedia more useful than many physical sources, its facts are usually referenced and substantiated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it would be better to use Wikipedia as a source to find reference .
You find what you 're looking for on Wikipedia , then follow the references .
If there arent any references then you should probably move on anyways because it 's unsubstantiated .
IMO this is what makes Wikipedia more useful than many physical sources , its facts are usually referenced and substantiated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it would be better to use Wikipedia as a source to find reference.
You find what you're looking for on Wikipedia, then follow the references.
If there arent any references then you should probably move on anyways because it's unsubstantiated.
IMO this is what makes Wikipedia more useful than many physical sources, its facts are usually referenced and substantiated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511870</id>
	<title>Re:As a source of sources, it is invaluable</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1268851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you look at bonafied sources.</i></p><p>Sorry, but the typo made me giggle.</p><p>Did we bonaf this one?  No?  Okay, what about this one?  It's been bonafied?  Great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you look at bonafied sources.Sorry , but the typo made me giggle.Did we bonaf this one ?
No ? Okay , what about this one ?
It 's been bonafied ?
Great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you look at bonafied sources.Sorry, but the typo made me giggle.Did we bonaf this one?
No?  Okay, what about this one?
It's been bonafied?
Great!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508120</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1268839380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On one hand the "West" has a long history of overlooking the contributions of China (and India, and Japan...) to science and culture.</p><p>On the other hand the current Chinese administration has absolutely credibility and anyone who is paying attention has seen the results of their attempts to rewrite recent history.</p><p>Meanwhile the "Western" governments bend over backwards to avoid offending the worlds fastest growing economy and we go on buying everything they throw at us.</p><p>What will the historians be saying one hundred years from now? Will the moral weakness of the "west" be condemned or is China doomed to be the same flash in the pan that the Soviet Union turned out to be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand the " West " has a long history of overlooking the contributions of China ( and India , and Japan... ) to science and culture.On the other hand the current Chinese administration has absolutely credibility and anyone who is paying attention has seen the results of their attempts to rewrite recent history.Meanwhile the " Western " governments bend over backwards to avoid offending the worlds fastest growing economy and we go on buying everything they throw at us.What will the historians be saying one hundred years from now ?
Will the moral weakness of the " west " be condemned or is China doomed to be the same flash in the pan that the Soviet Union turned out to be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand the "West" has a long history of overlooking the contributions of China (and India, and Japan...) to science and culture.On the other hand the current Chinese administration has absolutely credibility and anyone who is paying attention has seen the results of their attempts to rewrite recent history.Meanwhile the "Western" governments bend over backwards to avoid offending the worlds fastest growing economy and we go on buying everything they throw at us.What will the historians be saying one hundred years from now?
Will the moral weakness of the "west" be condemned or is China doomed to be the same flash in the pan that the Soviet Union turned out to be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507576</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuuum, is that even allowed?</p><p>My friends all told me, that here in Germany, Wikipedia is not allowed at all, and if you miss out even one citation, you&rsquo;re seriously getting in trouble. Some professors even want to throw you out from the university for it. (But I doubt they actually can.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuuum , is that even allowed ? My friends all told me , that here in Germany , Wikipedia is not allowed at all , and if you miss out even one citation , you    re seriously getting in trouble .
Some professors even want to throw you out from the university for it .
( But I doubt they actually can .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuuum, is that even allowed?My friends all told me, that here in Germany, Wikipedia is not allowed at all, and if you miss out even one citation, you’re seriously getting in trouble.
Some professors even want to throw you out from the university for it.
(But I doubt they actually can.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31514668</id>
	<title>And hilarity ensued?</title>
	<author>Carl.E.Pierre</author>
	<datestamp>1268818020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If not, then your classmates are idiots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If not , then your classmates are idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not, then your classmates are idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507744</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plenty of students I know duplicate sentences and entire paragraphs from Wikipedia and barely change the working.  I despise that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of students I know duplicate sentences and entire paragraphs from Wikipedia and barely change the working .
I despise that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of students I know duplicate sentences and entire paragraphs from Wikipedia and barely change the working.
I despise that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506966</id>
	<title>Procrastination tool</title>
	<author>Rijnzael</author>
	<datestamp>1268832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use it as a means to quickly learn the essence of a chapter whose homework problems are due in only hours, the subject matter of which I haven't yet learned (e.g., due to skipping class).  It's a quick and easy way to cut through a lot of a textbook's fluff and get to concrete examples of common problems and have the critical formulas for solving these problems displayed clearly.

<br> <br>

As an aside, when I had a class freshman year on electrical engineering, the chair of the department actually suggested we heavily use wikipedia to improve our understanding of the topics at hand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use it as a means to quickly learn the essence of a chapter whose homework problems are due in only hours , the subject matter of which I have n't yet learned ( e.g. , due to skipping class ) .
It 's a quick and easy way to cut through a lot of a textbook 's fluff and get to concrete examples of common problems and have the critical formulas for solving these problems displayed clearly .
As an aside , when I had a class freshman year on electrical engineering , the chair of the department actually suggested we heavily use wikipedia to improve our understanding of the topics at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use it as a means to quickly learn the essence of a chapter whose homework problems are due in only hours, the subject matter of which I haven't yet learned (e.g., due to skipping class).
It's a quick and easy way to cut through a lot of a textbook's fluff and get to concrete examples of common problems and have the critical formulas for solving these problems displayed clearly.
As an aside, when I had a class freshman year on electrical engineering, the chair of the department actually suggested we heavily use wikipedia to improve our understanding of the topics at hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508050</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia tells me...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1268839020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I'm pretty sure <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why\_Wikipedia\_is\_not\_so\_great" title="wikipedia.org">this wikipedia article</a> [wikipedia.org] says the opposite!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm pretty sure this wikipedia article [ wikipedia.org ] says the opposite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'm pretty sure this wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] says the opposite!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506942</id>
	<title>Wikipedia for engineers?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My workplace has one, that explains various esoteric concepts like how to get that ancient Windows 3 test program to run on XP, but as far as I know it's only a local resource.</p><p>Is there public version of Wikipedia designed for engineers &amp; technicians?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My workplace has one , that explains various esoteric concepts like how to get that ancient Windows 3 test program to run on XP , but as far as I know it 's only a local resource.Is there public version of Wikipedia designed for engineers &amp; technicians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My workplace has one, that explains various esoteric concepts like how to get that ancient Windows 3 test program to run on XP, but as far as I know it's only a local resource.Is there public version of Wikipedia designed for engineers &amp; technicians?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508264</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1268839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.. It's not specific to Chinese though, as just about every culture makes claim to great inventions. In the US, many believe Henry Ford invented the automobile. Many believe Edison invented the light bulb. Entire cultures believe that reading Hamlet in the original Klingon is the only way to appreciate the nuances of revenge. The thing is that you can qualify the inventions as much as you want. There are incremental changes, early failed prototypes; we stand on the shoulders of giants, after all. Maybe Ford was the first to mass produce automobiles or Edison was the first to make a bulb that lasted, but to claim that they were the original inventors is wrong.</p><p>Movable type though?  Probably Chinese. Fermented beverages?  Probably not. Well, at least they probably weren't the only "inventors". Use of salt? Hmmm.  Probably some over-zealous folks elsewhere tweaking articles to match the history they learned in school. Or a government tweaking folks to match their world view.  Either way, history is mutable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.. It 's not specific to Chinese though , as just about every culture makes claim to great inventions .
In the US , many believe Henry Ford invented the automobile .
Many believe Edison invented the light bulb .
Entire cultures believe that reading Hamlet in the original Klingon is the only way to appreciate the nuances of revenge .
The thing is that you can qualify the inventions as much as you want .
There are incremental changes , early failed prototypes ; we stand on the shoulders of giants , after all .
Maybe Ford was the first to mass produce automobiles or Edison was the first to make a bulb that lasted , but to claim that they were the original inventors is wrong.Movable type though ?
Probably Chinese .
Fermented beverages ?
Probably not .
Well , at least they probably were n't the only " inventors " .
Use of salt ?
Hmmm. Probably some over-zealous folks elsewhere tweaking articles to match the history they learned in school .
Or a government tweaking folks to match their world view .
Either way , history is mutable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.. It's not specific to Chinese though, as just about every culture makes claim to great inventions.
In the US, many believe Henry Ford invented the automobile.
Many believe Edison invented the light bulb.
Entire cultures believe that reading Hamlet in the original Klingon is the only way to appreciate the nuances of revenge.
The thing is that you can qualify the inventions as much as you want.
There are incremental changes, early failed prototypes; we stand on the shoulders of giants, after all.
Maybe Ford was the first to mass produce automobiles or Edison was the first to make a bulb that lasted, but to claim that they were the original inventors is wrong.Movable type though?
Probably Chinese.
Fermented beverages?
Probably not.
Well, at least they probably weren't the only "inventors".
Use of salt?
Hmmm.  Probably some over-zealous folks elsewhere tweaking articles to match the history they learned in school.
Or a government tweaking folks to match their world view.
Either way, history is mutable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507268</id>
	<title>Re:reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>dbolger</author>
	<datestamp>1268834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was a student, we had to sign away the rights to anything we wrote to the college, so I'd imagine you'd have to get permission from the college to submit it to Wikipedia in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a student , we had to sign away the rights to anything we wrote to the college , so I 'd imagine you 'd have to get permission from the college to submit it to Wikipedia in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a student, we had to sign away the rights to anything we wrote to the college, so I'd imagine you'd have to get permission from the college to submit it to Wikipedia in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506932</id>
	<title>As a source of sources, it is invaluable</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The list of sources at the bottom of most entries is a great starting point for research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The list of sources at the bottom of most entries is a great starting point for research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The list of sources at the bottom of most entries is a great starting point for research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511838</id>
	<title>Re:reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. There was a case about this on a previous slashdot. Student had something to write about and it was not covered by wikipedia. His submission was given <b>before</b> being written up as the wikipedia article. Software said that he had plagiarised from wikipedia despite the page appearing after he submitted his paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
There was a case about this on a previous slashdot .
Student had something to write about and it was not covered by wikipedia .
His submission was given before being written up as the wikipedia article .
Software said that he had plagiarised from wikipedia despite the page appearing after he submitted his paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
There was a case about this on a previous slashdot.
Student had something to write about and it was not covered by wikipedia.
His submission was given before being written up as the wikipedia article.
Software said that he had plagiarised from wikipedia despite the page appearing after he submitted his paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507770</id>
	<title>my teachers to that too</title>
	<author>iLogiK</author>
	<datestamp>1268837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of my teachers do that too. I'm in a non-english speaking country, but I'm studying in english, so teachers have to translate their courses.<br>Once I was having problems understanding something from a pdf from my teacher, so I thought I'd look up the subject on wikipedia. It was the exact same text.</p><p>I should have figured it out sooner since a lot of the words in the pdf were underlined (they were links from wikipedia)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of my teachers do that too .
I 'm in a non-english speaking country , but I 'm studying in english , so teachers have to translate their courses.Once I was having problems understanding something from a pdf from my teacher , so I thought I 'd look up the subject on wikipedia .
It was the exact same text.I should have figured it out sooner since a lot of the words in the pdf were underlined ( they were links from wikipedia )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of my teachers do that too.
I'm in a non-english speaking country, but I'm studying in english, so teachers have to translate their courses.Once I was having problems understanding something from a pdf from my teacher, so I thought I'd look up the subject on wikipedia.
It was the exact same text.I should have figured it out sooner since a lot of the words in the pdf were underlined (they were links from wikipedia)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508142</id>
	<title>entry.point.depth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wikipedia is super. but it really needs something like<br>a "depth" slider.<br>meaning "slider that lets the user adjust the depth of the data",<br>say, if a user wants to know more about say "turbines" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbines)<br>s/he could request some more details about geometry, eg. more depth.<br>-or-<br>say if a user request information for "curl" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curl\_\%28mathematics\%29)<br>can adjust the slider so as to have "less" depth.<br>the last example/article is next to impossible to understand for a non-mathematician.<br>-<br>also wikipedia just needs more multimedia elements, not just pictures/jpegs (and maybe a IRC chan?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wikipedia is super .
but it really needs something likea " depth " slider.meaning " slider that lets the user adjust the depth of the data " ,say , if a user wants to know more about say " turbines " ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbines ) s/he could request some more details about geometry , eg .
more depth.-or-say if a user request information for " curl " ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curl \ _ \ % 28mathematics \ % 29 ) can adjust the slider so as to have " less " depth.the last example/article is next to impossible to understand for a non-mathematician.-also wikipedia just needs more multimedia elements , not just pictures/jpegs ( and maybe a IRC chan ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wikipedia is super.
but it really needs something likea "depth" slider.meaning "slider that lets the user adjust the depth of the data",say, if a user wants to know more about say "turbines" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbines)s/he could request some more details about geometry, eg.
more depth.-or-say if a user request information for "curl" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curl\_\%28mathematics\%29)can adjust the slider so as to have "less" depth.the last example/article is next to impossible to understand for a non-mathematician.-also wikipedia just needs more multimedia elements, not just pictures/jpegs (and maybe a IRC chan?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512892</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>whovian</author>
	<datestamp>1268854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources. I hate that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim , without citing sources .
I hate that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Lots of my fellow students copy sentences and whole paragraphs from Wikipedia verbatim, without citing sources.
I hate that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000</id>
	<title>Credibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it has some, but not deep, credibility</p></div><p>Then again, what sources do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it has some , but not deep , credibilityThen again , what sources do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it has some, but not deep, credibilityThen again, what sources do?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507136</id>
	<title>Re:Euler Angles</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1268833620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm glad we have a study now which suggests this is how students are using this resource.</p></div><p>So am I, but I'm also waiting for studies that show college students eat, sleep, and worry about money and love just like the rest of us.</p><p>The premise of the article is sad:  that out default assumption should be that anyone who deviates from white-bread middle-aged middle-American in any respect should be treated as if they were irresponsible, dishonest, or stupid.</p><p>I live in a university town, my company has offices on campus, I'm a technical mentor on a program where most of the other mentors are university students, and I'm always surprised when I'm reminded that the students are a couple of decades younger than me, because there just isn't that much difference between us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad we have a study now which suggests this is how students are using this resource.So am I , but I 'm also waiting for studies that show college students eat , sleep , and worry about money and love just like the rest of us.The premise of the article is sad : that out default assumption should be that anyone who deviates from white-bread middle-aged middle-American in any respect should be treated as if they were irresponsible , dishonest , or stupid.I live in a university town , my company has offices on campus , I 'm a technical mentor on a program where most of the other mentors are university students , and I 'm always surprised when I 'm reminded that the students are a couple of decades younger than me , because there just is n't that much difference between us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad we have a study now which suggests this is how students are using this resource.So am I, but I'm also waiting for studies that show college students eat, sleep, and worry about money and love just like the rest of us.The premise of the article is sad:  that out default assumption should be that anyone who deviates from white-bread middle-aged middle-American in any respect should be treated as if they were irresponsible, dishonest, or stupid.I live in a university town, my company has offices on campus, I'm a technical mentor on a program where most of the other mentors are university students, and I'm always surprised when I'm reminded that the students are a couple of decades younger than me, because there just isn't that much difference between us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508326</id>
	<title>Re:As a source of sources, it is invaluable</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1268840100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> But then again, it seems like everyone's saying that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, but that traditional encyclopedias are.  From where I'm standing, the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the "don't trust us".  Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased (for any kind of an active field at least), and typically only show the "opinion" of one or two editors in each subject.  Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it's constantly updated and is "peer reviewed" by a significant number of people in the field (at least for the more popular topics).  Both have their limitations, but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs...</p></div><p>But you're comparing apples and oranges, on-line encyclopaedias vs dead wood encyclopaedias. The on-line Britannica is also updated more regularly than the print version. Also, the way Wikipedia is set-up, in many cases it also shows ony the "opinions" of a single editor who controls that particular entry. As for peer reviews, it is reviews after the fact, not before, leading to published errors that are then reviewed. And there are cases of "peers" being complete charlatans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay\_controversy) which (to my knowledge) hasn't yet happened with the traditional encyclopaedias. But thank goodness for all those people with doctorates in Pokemonology that can peer review Wikipedia articles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>It's also interesting that a number of Wikipedia articles cite the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source (try citation 1 on the article on automobiles for example) . I'm not sure you'd find the reverse situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then again , it seems like everyone 's saying that Wikipedia is n't to be trusted , but that traditional encyclopedias are .
From where I 'm standing , the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the " do n't trust us " .
Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased ( for any kind of an active field at least ) , and typically only show the " opinion " of one or two editors in each subject .
Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it 's constantly updated and is " peer reviewed " by a significant number of people in the field ( at least for the more popular topics ) .
Both have their limitations , but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs...But you 're comparing apples and oranges , on-line encyclopaedias vs dead wood encyclopaedias .
The on-line Britannica is also updated more regularly than the print version .
Also , the way Wikipedia is set-up , in many cases it also shows ony the " opinions " of a single editor who controls that particular entry .
As for peer reviews , it is reviews after the fact , not before , leading to published errors that are then reviewed .
And there are cases of " peers " being complete charlatans ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay \ _controversy ) which ( to my knowledge ) has n't yet happened with the traditional encyclopaedias .
But thank goodness for all those people with doctorates in Pokemonology that can peer review Wikipedia articles ; - ) It 's also interesting that a number of Wikipedia articles cite the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source ( try citation 1 on the article on automobiles for example ) .
I 'm not sure you 'd find the reverse situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But then again, it seems like everyone's saying that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, but that traditional encyclopedias are.
From where I'm standing, the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the "don't trust us".
Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased (for any kind of an active field at least), and typically only show the "opinion" of one or two editors in each subject.
Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it's constantly updated and is "peer reviewed" by a significant number of people in the field (at least for the more popular topics).
Both have their limitations, but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs...But you're comparing apples and oranges, on-line encyclopaedias vs dead wood encyclopaedias.
The on-line Britannica is also updated more regularly than the print version.
Also, the way Wikipedia is set-up, in many cases it also shows ony the "opinions" of a single editor who controls that particular entry.
As for peer reviews, it is reviews after the fact, not before, leading to published errors that are then reviewed.
And there are cases of "peers" being complete charlatans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay\_controversy) which (to my knowledge) hasn't yet happened with the traditional encyclopaedias.
But thank goodness for all those people with doctorates in Pokemonology that can peer review Wikipedia articles ;-)It's also interesting that a number of Wikipedia articles cite the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source (try citation 1 on the article on automobiles for example) .
I'm not sure you'd find the reverse situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511690</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1268851380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some professors even want to throw you out from the university for it.</i></p><p>Depends on how high the window is off the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some professors even want to throw you out from the university for it.Depends on how high the window is off the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some professors even want to throw you out from the university for it.Depends on how high the window is off the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510150</id>
	<title>Wikipedia..useless for Electronic Disciplines</title>
	<author>Edzor</author>
	<datestamp>1268847240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did Comms Engineering. I found Maths/Electronics/Commns particularly useless on Wikipedia. I and my classmates had to hit the old fashioned books (rather large ones too) to get information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did Comms Engineering .
I found Maths/Electronics/Commns particularly useless on Wikipedia .
I and my classmates had to hit the old fashioned books ( rather large ones too ) to get information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did Comms Engineering.
I found Maths/Electronics/Commns particularly useless on Wikipedia.
I and my classmates had to hit the old fashioned books (rather large ones too) to get information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509906</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Lord Efnar</author>
	<datestamp>1268846520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whole paragraphs?!? Amateurs!  I assigned an (extra credit!) essay in one of my classes, and of the 15 projects that I got back 8 of them were almost entirely comprised of text copied from Wikipedia and the other top Google result.</p><p>My favorite two were the ones who had (I presume) copied the web page directly into MS Word, which dutifully changed the style to "Web", and then printed the web content with a faint blue background.  The end result is that these papers were about 4 pages long, mostly faint blue, with occasional breaks for stuff they actually wrote.</p><p>That's how you do it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whole paragraphs ? ! ?
Amateurs ! I assigned an ( extra credit !
) essay in one of my classes , and of the 15 projects that I got back 8 of them were almost entirely comprised of text copied from Wikipedia and the other top Google result.My favorite two were the ones who had ( I presume ) copied the web page directly into MS Word , which dutifully changed the style to " Web " , and then printed the web content with a faint blue background .
The end result is that these papers were about 4 pages long , mostly faint blue , with occasional breaks for stuff they actually wrote.That 's how you do it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whole paragraphs?!?
Amateurs!  I assigned an (extra credit!
) essay in one of my classes, and of the 15 projects that I got back 8 of them were almost entirely comprised of text copied from Wikipedia and the other top Google result.My favorite two were the ones who had (I presume) copied the web page directly into MS Word, which dutifully changed the style to "Web", and then printed the web content with a faint blue background.
The end result is that these papers were about 4 pages long, mostly faint blue, with occasional breaks for stuff they actually wrote.That's how you do it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507486</id>
	<title>Re:Euler Angles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268836020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sort of surprised by this debate, and I think your post gets to the heart of it.  The point isn't to use credible sources, the point is to figure out the truth. Having editorial standards and detailed citations is one way to do this, but another, which is especially good for mathematical topics, is, i.e., you work through a proof or definition and see if it is consistent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sort of surprised by this debate , and I think your post gets to the heart of it .
The point is n't to use credible sources , the point is to figure out the truth .
Having editorial standards and detailed citations is one way to do this , but another , which is especially good for mathematical topics , is , i.e. , you work through a proof or definition and see if it is consistent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sort of surprised by this debate, and I think your post gets to the heart of it.
The point isn't to use credible sources, the point is to figure out the truth.
Having editorial standards and detailed citations is one way to do this, but another, which is especially good for mathematical topics, is, i.e., you work through a proof or definition and see if it is consistent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</id>
	<title>reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>fph il quozientatore</author>
	<datestamp>1268832420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia? Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater? Sounds unfair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I write an essay for my class , and then include parts of it into Wikipedia ?
Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater ?
Sounds unfair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia?
Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater?
Sounds unfair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508226</id>
	<title>Re:reverse plagiarism</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1268839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia? Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater? Sounds unfair.</p></div><p>It would be unfair... On the other hand, if you altered wikipedia to agree with what you wrote in your own paper, you might also be doing something unfair.  If your additions legitimately improve the quality of the article, that's one thing.  But I can also see a student updating wikipedia, and then pointing to it and saying "Oh look, wikipedia confirms what I'm saying in my paper."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I write an essay for my class , and then include parts of it into Wikipedia ?
Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater ?
Sounds unfair.It would be unfair... On the other hand , if you altered wikipedia to agree with what you wrote in your own paper , you might also be doing something unfair .
If your additions legitimately improve the quality of the article , that 's one thing .
But I can also see a student updating wikipedia , and then pointing to it and saying " Oh look , wikipedia confirms what I 'm saying in my paper .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia?
Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater?
Sounds unfair.It would be unfair... On the other hand, if you altered wikipedia to agree with what you wrote in your own paper, you might also be doing something unfair.
If your additions legitimately improve the quality of the article, that's one thing.
But I can also see a student updating wikipedia, and then pointing to it and saying "Oh look, wikipedia confirms what I'm saying in my paper.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170</id>
	<title>Re:As a source of sources, it is invaluable</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1268834040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree 100\%.  And as for the "it's not accurate enough for research", I find that it's rarely <b>REALLY</b> wrong.  And so long as you go through the sources and don't use it exclusively, it can be a great help.  Especially when researching an unfamiliar topic, the Wikipedia page can typically give you a decent 10,000 foot view of the subject, and then you can base your research from there.  While I wouldn't use it as a direct reference, you can usually gain enough knowledge from it to at least know what you're looking for when you look at bonafied sources.  But then again, it seems like everyone's saying that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, but that traditional encyclopedias are.  From where I'm standing, the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the "don't trust us".  Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased (for any kind of an active field at least), and typically only show the "opinion" of one or two editors in each subject.  Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it's constantly updated and is "peer reviewed" by a significant number of people in the field (at least for the more popular topics).  Both have their limitations, but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs...<br> <br>  Well, actually, now that I think about it, you probably could use it in direct situations, depending on what you're researching.  If you're doing research into a highly debated subject, Wikipedia usually does a very good job of highlighting the fact from the opinion, and has subsections for each contested part.  While this wouldn't be good for a physics research paper, it would likely be very good for a sociology, literary or even a psychology research paper...  Subjects that the inherent inaccuracies in a system like Wikipedia would be useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % .
And as for the " it 's not accurate enough for research " , I find that it 's rarely REALLY wrong .
And so long as you go through the sources and do n't use it exclusively , it can be a great help .
Especially when researching an unfamiliar topic , the Wikipedia page can typically give you a decent 10,000 foot view of the subject , and then you can base your research from there .
While I would n't use it as a direct reference , you can usually gain enough knowledge from it to at least know what you 're looking for when you look at bonafied sources .
But then again , it seems like everyone 's saying that Wikipedia is n't to be trusted , but that traditional encyclopedias are .
From where I 'm standing , the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the " do n't trust us " .
Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased ( for any kind of an active field at least ) , and typically only show the " opinion " of one or two editors in each subject .
Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it 's constantly updated and is " peer reviewed " by a significant number of people in the field ( at least for the more popular topics ) .
Both have their limitations , but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs... Well , actually , now that I think about it , you probably could use it in direct situations , depending on what you 're researching .
If you 're doing research into a highly debated subject , Wikipedia usually does a very good job of highlighting the fact from the opinion , and has subsections for each contested part .
While this would n't be good for a physics research paper , it would likely be very good for a sociology , literary or even a psychology research paper... Subjects that the inherent inaccuracies in a system like Wikipedia would be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\%.
And as for the "it's not accurate enough for research", I find that it's rarely REALLY wrong.
And so long as you go through the sources and don't use it exclusively, it can be a great help.
Especially when researching an unfamiliar topic, the Wikipedia page can typically give you a decent 10,000 foot view of the subject, and then you can base your research from there.
While I wouldn't use it as a direct reference, you can usually gain enough knowledge from it to at least know what you're looking for when you look at bonafied sources.
But then again, it seems like everyone's saying that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, but that traditional encyclopedias are.
From where I'm standing, the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the "don't trust us".
Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased (for any kind of an active field at least), and typically only show the "opinion" of one or two editors in each subject.
Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it's constantly updated and is "peer reviewed" by a significant number of people in the field (at least for the more popular topics).
Both have their limitations, but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs...   Well, actually, now that I think about it, you probably could use it in direct situations, depending on what you're researching.
If you're doing research into a highly debated subject, Wikipedia usually does a very good job of highlighting the fact from the opinion, and has subsections for each contested part.
While this wouldn't be good for a physics research paper, it would likely be very good for a sociology, literary or even a psychology research paper...  Subjects that the inherent inaccuracies in a system like Wikipedia would be useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508568</id>
	<title>Re:The China Problem</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1268841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a little shocked. Just going through, lots of claims, little evidence. Some of them don't cite a claim, and the article doesn't say its not completed, or that it needs citation for that part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a little shocked .
Just going through , lots of claims , little evidence .
Some of them do n't cite a claim , and the article does n't say its not completed , or that it needs citation for that part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a little shocked.
Just going through, lots of claims, little evidence.
Some of them don't cite a claim, and the article doesn't say its not completed, or that it needs citation for that part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509080</id>
	<title>How I use Wikipedia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268843220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like Wiki because it helps me get started, you know? It tells me what's what so I can obtain some background information or a summary about a topic.</p><p>Its got an easy to use interface, I can find out the meaning of new terms, and its easy to understand.</p><p>I typically use it at the beginning of my research. Or, as I like to say during my "presearch". It points me in the right direction and helps when I have no idea what to do for a research paper.</p><p>I know it's not more credible than other web sites. In fact, I rarely cite Wiki in my papers. Wiki is a great place to start, but a horrible place to end.</p><p>To me, Wiki is about four things - currency, coverage, comprehensibility, and convenience. It's up-to-date, tells me what I need to know, it's easy to read, and easy to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Wiki because it helps me get started , you know ?
It tells me what 's what so I can obtain some background information or a summary about a topic.Its got an easy to use interface , I can find out the meaning of new terms , and its easy to understand.I typically use it at the beginning of my research .
Or , as I like to say during my " presearch " .
It points me in the right direction and helps when I have no idea what to do for a research paper.I know it 's not more credible than other web sites .
In fact , I rarely cite Wiki in my papers .
Wiki is a great place to start , but a horrible place to end.To me , Wiki is about four things - currency , coverage , comprehensibility , and convenience .
It 's up-to-date , tells me what I need to know , it 's easy to read , and easy to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Wiki because it helps me get started, you know?
It tells me what's what so I can obtain some background information or a summary about a topic.Its got an easy to use interface, I can find out the meaning of new terms, and its easy to understand.I typically use it at the beginning of my research.
Or, as I like to say during my "presearch".
It points me in the right direction and helps when I have no idea what to do for a research paper.I know it's not more credible than other web sites.
In fact, I rarely cite Wiki in my papers.
Wiki is a great place to start, but a horrible place to end.To me, Wiki is about four things - currency, coverage, comprehensibility, and convenience.
It's up-to-date, tells me what I need to know, it's easy to read, and easy to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506930</id>
	<title>Re:Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And is this worse than them copying sentences and whole paragraphs from another website, without citing sources ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And is this worse than them copying sentences and whole paragraphs from another website , without citing sources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And is this worse than them copying sentences and whole paragraphs from another website, without citing sources ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31514668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31515292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31514482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31513490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2049229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31514482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31513490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31510916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31512892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31514668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31509990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2049229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31506932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31507170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31515292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31508326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2049229.31511870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
