The real question here is not why the page is longer, but why you were reading it
I didn't read it; I coped and pasted it into Microsoft to get the page count. If you want to know why, specifically, I chose zoophilia, it's because furries are hideous drama queens, and I knew that if I wanted to find a Wikipedia article on deviant sex that would be as long as the Wikipedia article on a major world religion, Zoophilia was the place to look.
And zoophilia is bestiality; different words for the same thing.
Did it sound to you like I was making a big deal about it? Seriously, I have no idea what brought that on. Do you just start randomly swearing at people every time you don't get their point?
(By contrast, their Thundercats page is barely half as long as their Judaism page, and their Star Wars page a mere two thirds as long))
The biggest bone I have with Wiki is their article about Batman. Nearly 85% of their information on the character is acurate. There is a few flaws and poor outdated information within the article. If you read the bio and history of DC characters they don't really credit Bill Finger much. That is because there is some obscure details on his contributions to the character. As I debated with other bat-heads he shouldn't be credit for creating the character. Rather he should be credited for writting certain stories. Don't take word by word of what says in Wiki...there are flaws.
Originally posted by Gregory
Did it sound to you like I was making a big deal about it? Seriously, I have no idea what brought that on. Do you just start randomly swearing at people every time you don't get their point?(By contrast, their Thundercats page is barely half as long as their Judaism page, and their Star Wars page a mere two thirds as long))
We live in a sex obsessed world, have you not noticed that yet? Judaism is pretty much set in stone. Whereas a fetish as complex as Bestiality has a lot of sides to it. If you'd bothered to actually read the article you'd know this.
Wait ... taking the ten seconds out of my day it takes to copy and paste something into Word and look at the page count (I did not perform a word count) means that it's a big deal for me? Geeze ... I hate to thing what it means when I spend an hour doing homework ... matrix analysis must be damned near the center of my life, if a ten-second diversion is a "big deal."
Are you seriously trying to convince me that having sex with animals is more complex then Judaism?
Regarding your question ... did you see where I said that even I wasn't sure what it said about Wikipedia? Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
Originally posted by Gregory
Wait ... taking the ten seconds out of my day it takes to copy and paste something into Word and look at the page count (did I say word count?) means that it's a big deal for me? Geeze ... I hate to thing what it means when I spend an hour doing homework ... matrix analysis must be damned near the center of my life, if a ten-second diversion is a "big deal."To answer your question ... did you see where I said that even I wasn't sure what it said about Wikipedia? So don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
Originally posted by Gregory
No, see I can look at the bottom of the page and find the page count. I don't have to do. As far as I know, you cannot find the word count without performing some sort of command.(The Wikipedia article on homosexuality is also shorter then the article on bestiality, come to that)
Well, on my Word I have a toolbar that shows the word count automatically. srug
Edit: I don't give a shit about it being longer, I just give a shit about your ignorance.
Wikipedia is a great springboard for looking up a topic. Whenever I use it to look up something, I always double-check by looking up the facts in more reputable. And the stuff I found on the Wikipedia article is usually correct.
In an article in my college's newspaper, they did a fact check, and Wikipedia's accuracy is actually comprable to Britannica. The fact that anyone can edit it is actually beneficial, I think, because the majority of people contributing actually want to help.
Originally posted by Strangelove
In an article in my college's newspaper, they did a fact check, and Wikipedia's accuracy is actually comprable to Britannica. The fact that anyone can edit it is actually beneficial, I think, because the majority of people contributing actually want to help.
There was a study that found its scientific articles to be more accurate than Britannica's
Originally posted by amity75What? 😑
Either way, it always gives you useless information that you can impress your friends with. Did you know that the reason your mouth fills with saliva before you vomit is because it's your bodies natural way of protecting your teeth from the acid in the vomit? I learned that from wikipedia.
Originally posted by amity75
Either way, it always gives you useless information that you can impress your friends with. Did you know that the reason your mouth fills with saliva before you vomit is because it's your bodies natural way of protecting your teeth from the acid in the vomit? I learned that from wikipedia.
That's just awesome.
Originally posted by Alliance
There was a study that found its scientific articles to be more accurate than Britannica's
I read that in The Daily Telegraph a few months ago.. w00t