Thread: Wong Fei Hung vs Wikipedia
6/25/2010 8:32pm, #101
6/25/2010 8:33pm, #102
6/25/2010 8:34pm, #103
6/25/2010 8:34pm, #104
6/25/2010 8:41pm, #105
Really, because here is the actual page the link leads to.
The words lies and gossip appear on that page (which itself doesn't give a complete cite for Crick and Grotpeter (1995)) but the other words do not.
Properly sourced, the entry would lead to
Or perhaps to here as at least some of the text is available on Google Books.
and the article would be cited like so:
Crick, N. R., & Grorpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722. or with an addendum to the reprint in the scanned Google Book.
By the way, a quick scan of the article doesn't turn up the words listed in the Wikipedia entry as part of Crick & Grorpeter (1995) with the exception of the word "exclusion", which can be seen in a search on p. 224 (which is not available except when searching for the word.)
So the question of where five of the six terms used in the "Forms of Relational Abuse" section remains a mystery. So, would that be considered an error in Nature? Or five errors? Or not an error at all, if the reviewer happened to agree with the uncited summary terms?
6/25/2010 9:14pm, #106
You responded to my above posts and only addressed the 1 issue that is blatantly obvious to HOPEFULLY everybody (don't use Wikipedia as a source).
You didn't address and, even further, you didn't concede the other points I made (the Nature piece only looked at science articles; it is not indicative of Wikipedia as whole. Also, errors were not weighted by severity).
Part of debating is acknowledging and conceding points and countering. If you ignore those points, it just shows you have an agenda.
6/25/2010 11:49pm, #107As far "smelling blood" from thread to thread, it's not as though your behavior changes from thread to thread, now is it? You believe your ignorance to be superior to the knowledge other people here have.
Watch as he derails another thread.
He used the term "traditional Judo" snicker and is 30+ and doesn't understand the word "clinch." Yet, he is an amateur Martial Artist.
6/25/2010 11:54pm, #108
6/25/2010 11:58pm, #109
Earth Dragon: how do you have time to train when you are so busy stroking your ego and trying to show off how little you know? It sounds like you are completely self-taught through books and Wikipedia (explains the many mistakes in that other thread).
ED's knowledge of traditional Judo is astounding! :-P
ED... erectile dysfunction. huh huh.
6/26/2010 12:00am, #110