Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

You obviously don't understand the way Wikipedia works. There's a stated policy on Wikipedia that there is to be no original research posted there. It is not a source. All info on Wikipedia is meant to be credited to some other source and merely compiled on Wikipedia. It's a messenger more than a source. Sometimes that does break down, as Mustang said typically in politics and history, but in the case I was refering to, it held.

   

There are millions of articles on there. It's not hard for people to change something. It's a publically created source. And it can be edited to be wrong, as I have seen many times. Wiki = bad source. Deal with it.

   

Wikipedia = unreliable source. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. When it's hard to verify the information provided, it's bad, but as a repository publicly accessible data (such as the chart we were discussing in the other thread, or election results), it's pretty good because the bad info gets weeded out pretty fast, especially when the sources are explicitly given.

   

You shouldn't be verifying anything from wiki. Use wiki as a third check.

And no, bad info isn't. I see it all the time where it's wrong.

   

Got your six.

   

Roger that, "Fire for effect!"

   

Sorry, i thought that was a generally directed comment. At the end of the day, wiki is the uniformed individual's first, last and worse line of defense (especially in some areas)

   

I only use Wiki when I'm trying to make a point to someone who actually trusts Wiki information.

Myself, I take Wiki with a grain of salt. It's usually fair enough on non-controversial subjects but once you get into something controversial the reliability of the information is inversely proportional to the polarization of the different sides on the subject.

Also, Wiki tends to not offer both sides of an argument and it is acknowledged to lean liberal.

The founder, to his credit, also acknowledged this and responded by inviting conservatives to join up as editors.

Which resulted in flamewars on the moderators forums.

So I take Wiki with a grain of salt.

From Wiki:

There are 83 pages of self-proclaimed liberal Wikipedia editors -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:L ... ikipedians

There is ONE page of self-proclaimed conservative Wikipedia editors -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:C ... ikipedians

So the propensity for bias is obvious and inevitable.

   

What a big whoppin' shock, Forum Fans, as Gerry "I-told-my-mom-and-dad-something-about-tossing-salad-in-my-sig"Hurt has bitched out of actually commenting on the salient points regarding Quebec's historical aversion towards helping out other nations in need - especially WWI and WWII. Well...i called it.

   

Gerry's reading from the Little Red Playbook: "When confronted with an inescapable truth one must run away to deny another day."

   

What is no shock at all, is the fact that you made a comment about WWI and WWII having nothing to do with Canada, and when faced with it you decided to weave and duck instead of explaining yourself. That was one of 2 comments you made that I decided to comment on. Since you have chosen to evade that, I see no reason to discuss the mindset of French Canadians when it comes to foreign wars on foreign soil.

   

and what inescapable truth would that be...... that right-wingers are idiots?

   

But mustang you used facts, something that one needs some intelligence to deal with. How can you expect Gerry to answer when he's unable to even read a whole thread let alone comprehend half of what he reads.

   

Here's my inescapable truth:

How true.

   

And like a true asshole nothing but shit comes out.

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next