Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Please, everyone note that Wikipedia is NOT to be taken as factual information. This is a website with information provided by other people, and not offical experts or actual company representatives. SO PLEASE DO NOT CITE INFORMATION FROM THERE, not only does it not count in college as a legit source of info, but I'm sick of seeing people use it as facts (even though most of it is usually correct, the few have ruined it) This is my angry rant for the day, thank you :victory:

Edited by Vultite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you DO cite it, please do the right thing and label it as such.

 

The Saiga-12 is a Kalashnikov-pattern 12 gauge combat shotgun available in a wide range of configurations. Like the Kalashnikov rifle variants, it is a rotating bolt, gas-operated gun that feeds from a box magazine. All Saiga-12 configurations are recognizable as Kalashnikov-pattern guns by the large lever-safety on the right side of the receiver, the optic mounting rail on the left side of the receiver and the large top-mounted dust cover held in place by the rear of the recoil spring assembly.

 

The looser clearances offered in an AK style design result in high reliability--an enormous boon on a semi-automatic shotgun, as this class of weapon had previously tended towards unreliability. The gun is also readily affordable and easy to maintain, made almost entirely from sheet-metal stampings.

 

The Saiga-12 is manufactured by the arms division of Izhmash, in Russia. It was previously imported into the US by European American Armories, although their agreement expired in 2005 and Izhmash is now exporting through the Russian-American Armory Company.

Via Wikipedia

 

If you don't feel like doing a fancy quote, at least put "From wikipedia: blah blah" at the beginning or -Wikipedia (link would be nice) at the end.

 

ETA: You really should provide a link for any stuff you quote here from another site. It's the right thing to do.

Edited by nalioth
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, everyone note that Wikipedia is NOT to be taken as factual information. This is a website with information provided by other people, and not offical experts or actual company representatives. SO PLEASE DO NOT CITE INFORMATION FROM THERE, not only does it not count in college as a legit source of info, but I'm sick of seeing people use it as facts (even though most of it is usually correct, the few have ruined it) This is my angry rant for the day, thank you :victory:

 

Uhh.. about that...some colleges are accepting Wiki as a source. Doesn't make sense to me at all how it can be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, everyone note that Wikipedia is NOT to be taken as factual information. This is a website with information provided by other people, and not offical experts or actual company representatives. SO PLEASE DO NOT CITE INFORMATION FROM THERE, not only does it not count in college as a legit source of info, but I'm sick of seeing people use it as facts (even though most of it is usually correct, the few have ruined it) This is my angry rant for the day, thank you :victory:

 

Uhh.. about that...some colleges are accepting Wiki as a source. Doesn't make sense to me at all how it can be.

 

Well, those colleges should consider improving their standards. They're encouraging their students to be lazy. Although of course there is some valid info on Wiki, it's also full of errors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All one has to do it hop over the the "Which is the best Polymer Pistol" thread to see what it looks like when someone plagiarizes Wikipedia and other Internet sources in an lame attempt to appear knowledgeable.

 

There is nothing wrong of course about researching and cross-referenceing your information to make your post as factual as possible. But you are just a poser when you simply copy information verbatim without quoting the source in a vain attempt to hold your own in a debate. :lolol:

 

Plus 1 to Vultite for making this point!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a website with information provided by other people, and not offical experts or actual company representatives

 

Yes! Mere "other people" could not possibly be experts. The clearest information always comes from unbiased sources like company representatives.

 

Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png

 

I'll cite whatever the hell I want, thank you very much. If you don't like my citations, you can stop reading any time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is just like a peer review journal. Lots of articles are checked, rechecked and rewritten several times by very knowledgeable people. Since I've returned to school, I've used it a ton as a jumping off point for further research. I mean each article usually has links to primary source documents, other websites, and/or other material that helps one understand the subject.

 

 

So Wikipedia gets a big +1 while this thread gets a big -1 from BigSal.

Edited by Makc
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I should have posted this a different way, but I was just saying "meh" to Wikipedia. A great idea ruined by a few people....I'm no mod (if I was I'd be fired in a day lol) so do what you want, I was just having a angry rant fueled by food poisioning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...