Books

I have quite a selection of books recently. My favorite was the series called Ranger's apprentice. I read a total of five out of the seven that's currently available. It is a fantasy book for young adult's. It is about a boy who was in a king's orphanage in the castle after his parents passed away. After a certain age, the boy William and the other three orphans are chosen for jobs. William ended up being chosne by the mysterious ranger corps.

Another good book is the Giver, which I think it is a master piece. It is about a utopia and how one boy realizes something terrible about the society that he grew up in. It is an interesting perspective on how humanity try to keep things the same. It makes a person think about what is truly important. If you like the first book, then I also think that you should read the loosely base sequels "Gathering Blue" and " the Messenger." The books are also a quick read and very engaging.

I have read the whole secries of Cirque Du Freak. I do not think its for everyone, but it is about vampires. The vampires in the book aren't exactly the same vampires most people would imagine, since they do not turn into bats, but have some interesting traits. I find it good to read if your willing to go through the books.

One of the most recent books i read is called "The Dead and the Gone". I am not sure that's the full title, but it did have those words. It is about a post apocalyptic world after the moon got hit by a meteor which sends the moon's orbit closer to earth. This causes floods and eletric shortages in New York and around the world. Now, the main character must take care of his two sisters while, one of his parents are in Puerto Rico for a funeral, and the mother is out of reach when she went to her job.

I tend to check out books that have sequels of it. I tend to not be satifisfied with just one book in it. A read all of these books at my local library so i won't ran out of stuff to read. I consider reading a hobby for me.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a valuable tool, but it should not be cited as a source for college level work. Wikipedia is simply a short summary compared to other sources. The wikipedia also faces problems with their quality of work. There are also inaccuracies within the articles of Wikipedia that may be misleading. Although Wikipedia is convenient, it's user generated content makes it questionable to be for paper that require critical thinking.
A Wikipedia may have valuable information, however it is more classified as an overview of the subject. It should merely be use as a starting point and a way to double check your information. College papers require critical thinking, which requires highly detailed information and "...you should not be citing an encyclopedia for college". Teachers should teach their student to use Wikipedia in leading to more Qualified articles.
Wikipedia faces problems with the quality of their articles, which makes them unsuited for citing. Wikipedia has a lot of articles, but they tend to differ with quality. The site lack enough editors to match their ever growing articles, which means that some sentences are either badly worded or confusing.

Wikipedia has inaccuracies, which makes it misleading. Their number of errors may be similar to Encyclopedia Britannica, but it is still significant. The major problem is that student do not double check their facts to see if the information is true. This will lead to poorly developed papers, if you just rely on wikipedia alone. A student should only cite Wikipedia, if he cited primary sources also.