Wikipedia's standards fall yet again... · General Discussion Forum

Alpha Centauri Restricted

Originally posted by lord xyz
I said wrong as in not good.

"Why do people feel they can say one entirely different word to another and then act like they meant the other?".

-AC

Bardock42 Junior Member

Originally posted by lord xyz
Replace wrong with unreliable. Since you don't understand what I meant by wrong.

I did understand. Pointed out how it was stupid to use it though.

Originally posted by lord xyz

Depends what I mean by wrong, obviously.

Not really. Depends entirely on what wrong actually means.

Originally posted by lord xyz

Well, no. 2 + 2 = 5. 2 + 2 = 1. Both are contradictions, both are wrong.

Which is why I said "likely". Not only do you use incorrect terms you also don't understand when the correct ones are used. Irritating.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

That Wikipedia is correct oftentimes.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I said wrong as in not good. Unreliable is a better word, however, and I should have used it.

Wrong usage of words can happen to anyone. Just relax. Admit it. And move on.

Zeal Ex Nihilo Restricted

Originally posted by Impediment
Boo-fu*king-hoo.
Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.

I DONT CARE BUT I'LL RESPOND ANYWAY

JacopeX Restricted

I still think Wikipedia is reliable. Only an idiot would be believe anything like that would true out of the mind.

Zeal Ex Nihilo Restricted

Actually, I believe that Sasuke is a fairly gaytarded character--and he's gay for Natuto (ergo, Naruto-sexual).

Therefore, FACT.

JacopeX Restricted

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Actually, I believe that Sasuke is a fairly gaytarded character--and he's gay for Natuto (ergo, Naruto-sexual).
Therefore, FACT.

^ Opinion.

Fact.

Zeal Ex Nihilo Restricted

ERRONEOUS.

NARUTO-SEXUALITY is a recognized and accepted lifestyle. Sasuke is gay for Naruta; therefore, he is a NARUTO-SEXUAL.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is.

Except that argument invalidates everything but direct personal experience.

Strangelove Misunderstood Genius

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is.

Good point.

You can usually find links to good sources from the Wikipedia articles though, they're pretty well-kept.

JacopeX Restricted

Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.

Example, Wikipedia. 🙄

Robtard Senor Member

That is completely besides the point of Wiki being a reliable information source, or not.

Schecter Restricted

Originally posted by JacopeX
Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.
Example, Wikipedia. 🙄

just wanted to type something, anything?

lord xyz Restricted

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did understand. Pointed out how it was stupid to use it though.

Could've been more specific.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Depends entirely on what wrong actually means.

Wrong can mean unsuitable, and an unreliable source, is unsuitable to use.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is why I said "likely". Not only do you use incorrect terms you also don't understand when the correct ones are used. Irritating.

But it's not likely is it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That Wikipedia is correct oftentimes.

Yes. I know that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wrong usage of words can happen to anyone. Just relax. Admit it. And move on.

I did admit it. I'd prefer that you actually told me I used the wrong word instead of this bullshit.

Afro Cheese Senior Member

lol.. i remember when my little brother(age 7) was watching this show and i mentioned that a few of my friends are into that show and he was like "how old are your friends...?"

DARKLORDCAEDUS The BatLord of the Jedi

Wikipedia is a good source of material. Anybody can edit it, but the thing is the people that run Wikipedia make sure whats being written is truthful facts.

JacopeX Restricted

Originally posted by Robtard
That is completely besides the point of Wiki being a reliable information source, or not.

Of course it is reliable. Have you noticed that when a troll vandilises an article with false source, the edit it out knowing it proven to be wrong? The people behind wiki make sure what they put in is the truth. I get my source from wiki all the time. 🙂

BackFire Blood. It's nature's lube

Wikipedia isn't a valid source?

WHO KNEW?????

Wikipedia exists for pure entertainment, nothing more. Kinda like Bardock.

Zeal Ex Nihilo Restricted

I'm confused. Why does JacopeX fail at--I'm not exaggerating here--everything? Seriously. Pretty much everything he writes is mixed with a good helping of failure.

"Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.

Example, Wikipedia."

NURH.

Lana mordrem

Originally posted by lord xyz
I liked the Impediment quote too. He's always good at making quotes to live by. 🙂
Anyway, Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself, not because it doesn't know some shit about a retarded anime.

Wikipedia does not contradict itself, the people who write and edit the articles can, though.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Of course it is reliable. Have you noticed that when a troll vandilises an article with false source, the edit it out knowing it proven to be wrong? The people behind wiki make sure what they put in is the truth. I get my source from wiki all the time. 🙂

Just because stuff that's obviously false gets edited out doesn't mean wrong info still doesn't get put in there.

I hope you don't ever try and use it as a source for something like a school paper, because no one with any common sense would accept that.

Victor Von Doom Latverian Diplomat

Wiki's alright. It's a good starting point usually if one is alien to a subject.