Wikipedia is, in most cases, a reliable source, specifically if keeping an eye on the references. ... Most incorrect references in Wikipedia pages -- of major topics -- are corrected in short order. ... It is every bit as reliable on those major subjects as any other site.
I've found that the references for many topics, especially less objective ones, can be pretty horrendous, not in terms of formatting or actually including them, but in terms of what the writer chose to use as a reference. Academic sources are rare; a lot are second-hand; and tons of them are extremely outdated.
It's getting less good over time in my opinion. The number of editors continues to decline and there are power moderators with an axe to grind who degrade the quality of information.
Worse, there have been very few improvements in 15 years despite huge increases in their budget.
It's an awesome starting point with a trove of references that any student should at the very least look at.On a related tangent, I hope students are being taught how to use Microsoft Word's features to style and automatically manage things like the table of contents, bibliographies, references, etc. It's night and day from when I was a student.
I love wikipedia and I use it all the time, not for papers though. Teachers don't like it because they think it is unreliable or it is too easy for the students. But anyone can tell when the articles have been edited so I don't understand what the problem is. Don't trust wikipedia if you see that the article has been edited which is rarely, and everything is fine.
Speaking of correct spellings, the quiz gives us "Japanese emperor" and "Aztec emporer". And I don't even need to consult Wikipedia to know which one is correct!
Wikipedia is a great boon to all of us, there is no denying that! I use it constantly. I think however that many teachers are properly cautioning you, especially on more esoteric subjects. In my research I've found a few entries that were either wrong or had a very heavy editorial bent towards a specific viewpoint that might or might not be the accepted view or simply did not reflect known facts at all. One of them for a long time was the entry on the above mentioned emperor, Nero. If you'd read the original wikipedia entry on "Nero" you would have thought he was an all-around great guy who was one of Rome's greatest emperors... the historian who'd written the entry is one of a very few who like to ignore all the contemporary accounts from Nero's own time and create a "kinder gentler Nero". It's been modified some at this point, but it's still off center to a degree. Likewise, when researching some villages and towns in my county that the State of New York had forcibly moved people from in order to create som
Pocahontas always makes me smile. For any of you who've ever seen/played the game "Password"....when I was a kid, my parents would play Password with my aunt and uncle. The Password was "dot". My mom is giving the clue to my aunt, and she just knows she's got a slam dunk, first-clue, 10-point winner. So she says, "Polka......" (extending the 2nd syllable to suggest that she wants the word that logically comes next) Without hesitating, my aunt enthusiastically responds, "Hontas!" To which, my mom, in utter disbelief replies, "What's a hontas?!!!" One of those crazy moments that becomes family legend. They're all gone now, but it still brings a smile to my face when I think of it. Such good, fun memories.
Can't speak for others, but my schooling only gave very basic coverage to the Crusades - more or less when they were and what they were about. We didn't go into anywhere near as much detail as the subject deserves. I blame the fact that world history classes tended to teach the same stuff over and over again, because most of the students didn't retain from year to year.
I think I first heard about them in Mr. Ahern's 6th grade class when we were studying world history, though not in very much detail. Then in 9th grade World Civilizations GT we learned about them a bit more in-depth and this was the year I think that I learned of Salad ad-Din. And later in 12th grade when I was taking AP European History (an elective) we learned about them even more in-depth including, I recall, the Children's Crusade and Venetian/Crusader sacking of Constantinople.
Reflecting on this just now it occurred to me that I may have first heard of Salah ad-Din playing Genghis Khan 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System. I remember the Mamluks being in that game. I looked it up and he appears in one scenario but I'm not sure if I played that scenario or not.
Well, just a humble comment from a Mexican guy: The question about the Aztec emperor has the wrong answer. The correct one is Cuauhtémoc.
Moctezuma II was indeed the emperor when Cortés arrived to Tenochtitlán, but he was overthrown by his people, beacuse he defended the Spaniards (believing their were gods).
Then Cuitláhuac ascended to the throne, but he was soon killed by the fearmost weapon the Europeans had brought: Smallpox.
After that, Cuauhtémoc was crowned tlatoani (emperor), and he still fought against the Spaniards. So technically he was the emperor defeated by Cortés, not Moctezuma (who was killed a year before the Spaniard victory).
Either name should be accepted, since both were Aztec emperors killed during the Cortes expeditions, although Cuauhte'moc was the last emperor in charge when the empire fell.
Many of the people in the quiz had more than one name, but they are all commonly known by a single name (e.g. all the Romans would have had two or three names, Michaelangelo had a much longer official name, anyone familiar with Machiavelli is likely to know his first name was Niccolo).
What I appreciate about Wikipedia is that it updates its site almost before the event happens. Hours after Roger Moore's recent death, his bio on wikipedia was already updated... way before the printed media picked up on it.
which I guess makes the answer wrong, since these, more accurate, versions of his name show that he did have a a first and last name.. just mashed together and distorted
He didn't change his name. He's got a first and last name. Westerners who were not familiar with Arabic naming conventions mashed it together in to one name because they didn't understand what they were hearing. The same way small children call the former president "Barakobama"
"These historical figures are often known by a single name." It doesn't mean they didn't HAVE an additional name, just that they are frequently referred to by just the one. People much more frequently talk about Michelangelo than they do Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni.
Okay, I'm sure this is the exact type of pedantry you hate here, but I really really don't believe "Machiavelli" is any more "singular" an identifier than, like, "Washington," or "Jefferson," or "Lincoln." I very commonly hear him referred to as "Niccolo Machiavelli"... that's just his last name... and yeah, some people probably don't know his first name, but that there's a difference between that and people who are really actually only known by one name.
Yes, this answer also confused me. If notable surnames are also accepted, then does it mean we can also include Mussolini or Paganini here, because you understand I'm talking about Benito Mussolini and Niccolo Paganini, as much as 50% of other notable historical persons, yes?
Got them all, but I disagree a little on Dante and Machiavelli. Their last name (Alighieri) or respective first name (Niccolo) came immediately to my mind. They don't suit here as much as all of the rest where I have no idea whether they even had some other name. (I read Pele's last name once, but can't remember at all.)
Not all contributors to Wikipedia are trolls.
Worse, there have been very few improvements in 15 years despite huge increases in their budget.
"Ladies and Gentleman, Monty Zuma!" Nothing like changing an Aztec emperor from a comedian to an actual emperor.
Reflecting on this just now it occurred to me that I may have first heard of Salah ad-Din playing Genghis Khan 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System. I remember the Mamluks being in that game. I looked it up and he appears in one scenario but I'm not sure if I played that scenario or not.
Moctezuma II was indeed the emperor when Cortés arrived to Tenochtitlán, but he was overthrown by his people, beacuse he defended the Spaniards (believing their were gods).
Then Cuitláhuac ascended to the throne, but he was soon killed by the fearmost weapon the Europeans had brought: Smallpox.
After that, Cuauhtémoc was crowned tlatoani (emperor), and he still fought against the Spaniards. So technically he was the emperor defeated by Cortés, not Moctezuma (who was killed a year before the Spaniard victory).
It's like in the Satanic Verse, Saladin changing his name from Salahuddin to better appeal to western audiences.