No, to be truthful, I was never aware that wikipedia was an org site. I have always seen it as a com site. However, despite that, my main issue with wikipedia is that a ton of the information has no sources cited for the listing(s). It is not like there is a division of personnel ensuring the accuracy of what people input. In any event, non of my professors accept wikipedia as a valid source of information due to the incosistency and lack of cite management. Ingo Kloecker <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Friday 04 April 2008, Hooligans in Kilts wrote: > I'm sorry, I have an issue with people who use Wikipedia. If you are > going to cite a source, how about one that is reliable? Wikipedia is > barely monitored and anyone can go in and make changes to whatever > they want to. Use an edu, gov, or a org site if you are going to use > one. com sites are commercial, and net sites are just domains on a > network, which can be linked to certain organizations or businesses. wikipedia.org is an org site, so you seem to contradict yourself. :-) Or does "org site" mean something other than a website whose domain name ends in .org? Regards, Ingo ~~~~~~ Manage your subscription at http://www.freelists.org/list/projectaon --------------------------------- You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.