Rahul Sharma lies down on his silk love seat. The native of Jacksonville, Fla., believes that Wikipedia serves an educational purpose for the people who question the accuracy of facts related to history.Photo: Aaron Whallon
I can't tell you all the times my teachers used to tell me to get started early on reading assignments as a kid.
You know, the teachers who would always bug you about that kind of stuff so you kept up and never fell behind.
Why read long, boring books when you can get answers quick and easy?
The solution: cliff notes baby!
Nothing beats the convenience of getting up to speed on information without the hassles of spending hours and hours and hours and hours of reading something useless.
In fact, wikipedia offers web surfers to ride the waves of easy-to-read information at a cost free expense.
That's right, an encyclopedia that does not even cost a dime, my friend.
The recent surge of reference sites reflects people's interest about what is fact and how we come to know it.
More importantly, a source viewed as so inaccurate serves an educational purpose.
Internet activist Andy Carvin presents a contrast between wikipedia and Britannica.
Wikipedia challenges everyday readers to not accept historical information at face value but rather encourages them to participate in ongoing discussions about the world we live.
Anyone can edit, contribute, or even post new content.
Gosh, even my ethics teacher got the clue about the term wiki.
Let's try for something different in the visual department. The personal portrait approach may work some of the time but art that matches the topic more clearly than you sleeping might be a btter way to go.
I like the tongue-in-cheek tone of this post. Do you think reporters are getting lazy?
It used to be much harder to find information. Now that there are so many avenues of research, do you think reporters are getting lax about using them?