233416 Bullies, 3570 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 161 to 170 of 202
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71314151617 18192021 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,623

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 8:41pm

    supporting member
     Style: 無木兔

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Skippy View Post
    Why don't you acknowledge the corrections or the counter-points? Why do you just ignore them (see me RE:Wikipedia and Rivington above RE:Wikipedia correctness)?

    ----US
    I don't have time to acknowledge or counter them all. I do my best to keep up. Remember I am here, trying to mix in some humor and martial banter in with my otherwise hellishly hectic life, not go point to point on some of the more obvious WEAK COUNTERARGUMENTS, that even when countered people while judge against me since I'm the current punching bag. It's in a way helping me vent steam over things I wish I could explain more concisely. Which is why I'm lighthearted enough to keep returning like a good sport.

    The remains that if you choose 100 random articles in Wikipedia on MAJOR subjects (not fringe things, conspiracy theories, or even Martial Arts), you'll find nothing but correct information, cited well enough to help you continue your search. The citations are often other periodicals that can be lent from a library, etc.

    Yes folks, it turns out sometimes your proof isn't actually in the first, second, or third citation. It's actually in the written works/studies published...which anyone with a library card or local Border's can do.

    The arguments have been that "if I can't find it on the Internet in three degrees of separation, it (Wikipedia) MUST not be true". The truth is often that the Wiki page is 100% accurate, but you'd need to leave the Internet to actually find some of the terms and things written about there, etc.

    ED
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/27/2010 8:59pm at .
  2. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,623

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 9:01pm

    supporting member
     Style: 無木兔

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It's sad that this whole thread happened because I went to grab a picture of a real person, Wong Fei Hung, happened to get it from the wiki, asked Ming Loyalist a serious, directed question, and an army of site trolls showed up.

    Great derailment, site nerds.

    -ED
  3. Uncle Skippy is offline

    See my tongue. SEE IT!

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Out West, USA
    Posts
    2,334

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 9:38pm

    Business Class Supporting Member
      Style: BJJ, MT, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    The remains that if you choose 100 random articles in Wikipedia on MAJOR subjects (not fringe things, conspiracy theories, or even Martial Arts), you'll find nothing but correct information,
    I'd say that the definition of a well-researched encyclopedia is based on the accuracy of such "fringe" things because it takes more research and diligence to ensure correctness of the material.

    The major things are easy to get right.

    ...--...US
  4. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,623

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 10:02pm

    supporting member
     Style: 無木兔

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Skippy View Post
    I'd say that the definition of a well-researched encyclopedia is based on the accuracy of such "fringe" things because it takes more research and diligence to ensure correctness of the material.

    The major things are easy to get right.

    ...--...US
    That depends though. Encyclopedia Brit is devoid of a lot of interesting subjects that are on the Wiki. Doesn't mean what's written in the Wiki isn't true in any particular case.

    My point remains the same: you can't call anything a "bad source" if in some cases the reference material is 100% accurate. In the case of Wiki, it remains much of it is perfectly accurate. At least with Wiki, someone will tend to point it out. For-profit knowledgebases like EB, are a different matter.

    Cheers,

    ED
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/27/2010 10:10pm at .
  5. Uncle Skippy is offline

    See my tongue. SEE IT!

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Out West, USA
    Posts
    2,334

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 10:13pm

    Business Class Supporting Member
      Style: BJJ, MT, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    T Doesn't mean what's written in the Wiki isn't true in any particular case.
    But the fact that it is written there and not completely accurate is the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    My point remains the same: you can't call anything a "bad source" if in some cases the reference material is 100% accurate.
    So we've gone from "99.9%" to "99%" to "often" now to "some" ?

    I can call it a "bad source" if the hierarchy of the editors and the resulting culture discourage corrections which discuss points of contention. That is Wikipedia's biggest problem that won't be solved until they screen and vet the admins and page care-takers. Then they need checks and balances to overrule people who have obvious vested interests if having pages read a particular way. Until then, it is not a dependable source in the least; it is an aggregate of suggestions like Yahoo Answers (oh yes I did).

    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    For-profit knowedgebases like EB, are a different matter.
    Ugh.

    -=-=--=-=-=-=--US
  6. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,623

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 10:25pm

    supporting member
     Style: 無木兔

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Skippy View Post
    I can call it a "bad source" if the hierarchy of the editors and the resulting culture discourage corrections which discuss points of contention. That is Wikipedia's biggest problem that won't be solved until they screen and vet the admins and page care-takers. Then they need checks and balances to overrule people who have obvious vested interests if having pages read a particular way. Until then, it is not a dependable source in the least;
    I understand a lot of you have Wikipedia bias, probably because some subject you hold dear is held hostage.

    Go read this wikipedia page on quantum entanglement. And find me an error. Seriously.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

    Love and respek

    ED
  7. BackFistMonkey is online now
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar

    Actual Photo

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
    Posts
    8,299

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 10:33pm

    supporting member
     Style: Recovery-Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    I understand a lot of you have Wikipedia bias, probably because some subject you hold dear is held hostage.

    Go read this wikipedia page on quantum entanglement. And find me an error. Seriously.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

    Love and respek

    ED
    Did you help on that one ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi108 View Post
    Nuke a unborn gay whale for Christ.
    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994
  8. Uncle Skippy is offline

    See my tongue. SEE IT!

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Out West, USA
    Posts
    2,334

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 10:33pm

    Business Class Supporting Member
      Style: BJJ, MT, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    I understand a lot of you have Wikipedia bias, probably because some subject you hold dear is held hostage.
    Not bias. Just a realistic view of academic research methodologies. I want my research to be correct. Using Wikipedia does not help with that.

    Plus, nothing should be 'held hostage.' The fact that that is a possibility again points to the problem with Wikipedia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    Go read this wikipedia page on quantum entanglement. And find me an error. Seriously.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
    Actually, I'll just let Wikipedia answer this for you:

    This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.
    This article might be correct (I'm not going to read it), but, again, the oversight is horribly lacking.
  9. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,623

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 10:35pm

    supporting member
     Style: 無木兔

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Skippy View Post
    Not bias. Just a realistic view of academic research methodologies. I want my research to be correct. Using Wikipedia does not help with that.

    Plus, nothing should be 'held hostage.' The fact that that is a possibility again points to the problem with Wikipedia.
    So when a Wiki article cites, say, Einstein's princeton papers, its totally not credible? Way to throw baby out with bathwater...

    And...many history books also hold truth hostage. I'll leave it at that.

    -ED
  10. Uncle Skippy is offline

    See my tongue. SEE IT!

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Out West, USA
    Posts
    2,334

    Posted On:
    6/27/2010 10:40pm

    Business Class Supporting Member
      Style: BJJ, MT, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    So when a Wiki article cites, say, Einstein's princeton papers, its totally not credible? Way to throw baby out with bathwater...
    Nope. You are equating the accuracy of Einstein's papers with the accuracy of the summary of Einstein's papers in Wikipedia. That is a horrible way to frame the question.

    The accuracy of the content is separate from the delivery system (Wikipedia). If the delivery system is flawed, then the summaries of the content are jeopardized.

    Same thing I've been saying all along.

    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    And...many history books also hold truth hostage. I'll leave it at that.
    We're not talking history books. Stay on subject.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.