You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
United Off Topic **FOR MEMBERS ONLY**Chat about whatever! Off-topic chat forum. (Be sure to appropriately title posts that are NWS)
You must be registred and logged in to see sub-forums
Its nice that anyone can do that and thats why wikipedia isn't a credible source
hm, just like open source software isnt better than, hm, lets say Microsoft's unreleased source code?
some of wikipedia may not be 100% correct, but thats what makes it great, someone who knows can re-write it.
lets take history for example. who writes whats in the history books? most times its the victor. it is one persons view on it, and if its not correct most times it cant be changed, or is a hassle to change.
i am not saying that wikipedia is the best, both static and dynamic references have their advantages and disadvantages. lets just say to do good research requires one to use multiple sources, and then draw a conclusion from there.
Umnitza now provides a mechanic to install all parts ordered right in the box! It's their new "Total customer service program" that will eliminate all the haters and keep incompetents from breaking **** and blaming the vendor! When you are all set simply call INS and they will pick him up free of charge.
Your Ride: 1991 318is (e30 m42), 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
I like wikipedia i think its cool that people can go on and correct information etc. and you can almost always get more information about something your looking for. I'm just saying it isn't credible for citing things in papers, etc.