Originally posted by lord xyz
Actually, Wikipedia is a crap reference, it's just that I've used it time to time and didn't want to sound hypocrityical. 😮Also, PVS is king of the GDF!
Wikipedia actually does hold many truthful and informative articles. Despite being written by others, you can clearly tell if it's accurate or not.
Yet if it is, a lot of people choose to just say "How is that official? Someone just wrote it!". While this is true, it's nothing but a technicality if the article itself speaks the truth.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI'm sure someone else will tell you you're wrong.
Wikipedia actually does hold many truthful and informative articles. Despite being written by others, you can clearly tell if it's accurate or not.Yet if it is, a lot of people choose to just say "How is that official? Someone just wrote it!". While this is true, it's nothing but a technicality if the article itself speaks the truth.
-AC
Originally posted by Deano
thats what i said you pig *spits*
whats that old saying about a broken clock?
sorry deano, i guess im so used to ignoring your copy-and-paste spam and endless babbling that im in the habit of ignoring everything you say. not that i plan on changing that, but at this moment i figured i'd give you a heads up so you dont waste your time talking to my back.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Also, PVS is king of the GDF!
no, im just some forum prick...like all of you.
Originally posted by PVSIf you were truely ignoring him you wouldn't've said that post.
whats that old saying about a broken clock?sorry deano, i guess im so used to ignoring your copy-and-paste spam and endless babbling that im in the habit of ignoring everything you say. not that i plan on changing that, but at this moment i figured i'd give you a heads up so you dont waste your time talking to my back.
no, im just some forum prick...like all of you.
Originally posted by PVSStill, your post was false and talking about past occurances, another idiotic debating tactic. 😬
i saw that he quoted me. i honestly ignore him most of the time...well ever since he posted a picture of a dead baby to win attention for his point....whatever it was... that was it for me.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Still, your post was false and talking about past occurances, another idiotic debating tactic. 😬
im not sure how its false since it did happen, but whatever. you are correct in one respect. in mentioning why i ignore him i did expose another tactic (horrid photos for attention), so sorry about that.
Originally posted by PVSDoesn't matter.... Now, have you got an idiotic debating tactic you'd care to tell me?
im not sure how its false since it did happen, but whatever. you are correct in one respect. in mentioning why i ignore him i did expose another tactic (horrid photos for attention), so sorry about that.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wikipedia actually does hold many truthful and informative articles. Despite being written by others, you can clearly tell if it's accurate or not.Yet if it is, a lot of people choose to just say "How is that official? Someone just wrote it!". While this is true, it's nothing but a technicality if the article itself speaks the truth.
-AC
Unfortunately, somone's psychic sense as to whether an article is accurate or not is not good enough.
A reference made to academic standards needs to be from a reliable source and give due credit. A wikipedia reference fails on both counts, the information not being reliable and a wiki reference not giving genuinely true credit; it is for these reasons academic institutions reject them.
Belief in whether something is right or wrong isn't any good. There is no error control mechanism for wiki that makes it in any way relaible and hence any reference at all from it does not stand on its own two feet.
A wiki article may well contain very accurate and useful information but there is no way to discern that, unless it provides sources, in which case you can use the sources.
If you happen to think wiki makes a good argument, the use the argument. But that's just opinion. You can type as many opinions here as you like- you don't have to cite them.
Citation is done when you are trying to prove what you say comes from a source of appropriate authority, nut just something you personally think. Wiki is no good in that regard, as its founder was clear on (and in fact, he is now engaged in trying to create a new project that WILL be credible in that way).
Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no error control mechanism for wiki that makes it in any way relaible
exactly. i have seen ridiculous editing done with wikipedia. on political topics there would be a completely bias explanation for political terminology. i believe one in particular was "swift-boating" that i saw. it was since edited and corrected, but there was enough proof for me to not blindly trust wiki