Do you think a person should be a top contributor if all they do is look up answ

Question:and they don't actually have much knowledge in the subject? Can't we all do that in the subject of history? Doesn't it kind of take away from it all if you just do searches and aren't knowledgable?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: and they don't actually have much knowledge in the subject? Can't we all do that in the subject of history? Doesn't it kind of take away from it all if you just do searches and aren't knowledgable?

I agree to some extent with Michael C, but also to some extent with the question.

Most annoying are people who don't bother to try to find the answer using Google or their textbooks.

But also annoying to me are people who simply copy long quotes from Wikipedia or some other on-line source.

I don't have a problem per se if people look up the answers--I do it myself sometimes, and generally do it to make sure that I'm giving the right answer. HIstory is a pretty big subject and it's impossible to keep everything in my head.

As long as they are providing the best answer, I don't see a problem with it.

What I see as more of a problem is people coming here and asking about things they could very easily google themselves.

If they're answering, they're contributing, no matter where they got the information from. I'd rather have information that was looked up, not made up. Besides, if the people actually looked it up instead of posting on here, they'd be done quicker.

what irritates the crap out of me is when school kids get on here and ask some of the most basic questions that they should already know or are just too lazy to look the stuff up for themselves. i have no problem with someone that takes the time to look up something, answers and gets the bonus points. at least they are trying to improve their knowledge of history and educate someone else in the process. i know that i've come across some questions that i've had to look up because i have neither studied it or just plain forgot.

They are answering a question and that is what this is all about! It doesn't matter where they get the answer. If you are to lazy to look up the answer yourself then why whine!

There are occasions where i will look up an answer for more depth, but for the most part i actually answer from memory. Just because a few people do things, doesn't mean the majority do it. I have learned a few things myself, not only from answers here but from having to look things up, finding details that i didn't realise were connected with that part of history.

I don't really care what others do; if i did i think i would be in constant whine mode over the hoards of teenage school kids who come here expecting their homework questions to be answered for them and in detail, 'with sources'.

The way i see it, i can answer the questions i choose appropriately and with as much detailed knowledge i have, and leave it to the general population to realise who knows more - someone know knows their stuff, or someone of whom you can quote their answers directly from Wikipeadia.

To 'SS' below me - I'm totally with you on that one, i know what you mean about picking answers.

Yes and no. Some people have a problem dessiminating information. Sometimes I look up an answer if I am interested. But I do that anyway. For example, when I watched the movied "Braveheart' I looked up all the main chanracters and discovered the movie is essentially a work of fiction. So much for accuracy (sigh)! But anyway, sometimes I answer questions without lookinjg up any information because the answer is known to me and sometimes I give referrals to Web sites and sometimes I answer based upon what I looked up and . . . I think it is all individual and should be looked at that way.

I prefer to quote sources with an answer. It gives the person a source and a location to go and read more.

Reading a reply with quotes and sources also means the person isn't just making a reply without any facts

I feel that more often than not I give a satisfactory answer, sometimes I do like to double check facts by looking them up if I'm not 100%... if that jogs my memory I may be able to give more depth in an answer. I agree with the people who talk about how annoying it is when kids just post questions from HW, and the people who just copy and paste out of encarta or wikipedia... seems like taking the lazy way out. It used to drive me nuts that I wasn't a top contributor but I'd see people who were giving stupid answers get it.

I'm not a top contributor so I guess I shouldn't respond to this question, but I believe that if someone _knows a process_ that the questioner does not, then it is perfectly acceptable to look up material.

As another poster said, I usually go from memory, so I pick and choose my questions. And sometimes, if someone has really hit the nail on the head with a particular response, I just give it a thumbs up and don't bother replying, even if it's in my particular field.

I think that if someone is coming to yahoo answers (for whatever reason) then how they get an ACCURATE answer is up to the individual respondent and consequently the questioner to choose as best response.

I've seen some of my very detailed answers get not only a thumbs down, but also not be picked by the questioner even when I know for a fact that my response is more historically accurate. But I don't let it bother me. The main reason I'm on yahoo answers is to help people who legitimately need help. I'm a teacher and I know that some textbooks are so dense that poor high-school kids have real difficulty poring through them. Combine that with some of the really off-the-wall questions I've seen in the assignments since I've been logged on here, and I have felt compelled to answer.

So, to get back to your question, yes, as long as they look up the material and provide accurate information for the questioner, they should be a top contributor. But ultimately, the questioner must decide for him/herself whether that question is truly the best. So make sure to vote!