Thread: Wong Fei Hung vs Wikipedia
6/25/2010 1:18pm, #11
6/25/2010 1:31pm, #12
Someone said wiki is a terrible Source you decided to argue no it is not. Many wiki entries are well written and concerning Martial Arts are completely and utterly wrong.
Ask Der about how hard it was to try and maintain the TKD and KMW Martial Art wikis.
6/25/2010 1:36pm, #13
6/25/2010 5:05pm, #14
People smell blood in one thread and take it to others?
I made a summary, I forgot you get defensive and angry when questioned.
Sri said please do not use wiki for a source.
Dusty got mad at being questioned and brought up citations and credibility to some articles.
Iif culled the stupdiity.
A question for all of you Chinese MA guys. - No BS MMA and Martial Arts
Last edited by It is Fake; 6/25/2010 5:09pm at .
6/25/2010 5:11pm, #15
Don't write back to argue that this means something different. One, "might vary" means that you do think a significant fraction of Wiki is credible. You're also overly impressed with citations, mainly because you don't know what you're talking about. Citations generally don't matter as they are more or less chosen arbitrarily by non-experts who don't even understand what the sources actually say. Here's an example of that happening here back in 2008:
Don't use Wikipedia and expect to be taken seriously. The end. We will just have this discussion every single time you post something you found on Wiki so do not do it.
As 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.
6/25/2010 5:12pm, #16
6/25/2010 5:44pm, #17
6/25/2010 6:09pm, #18
Since you guys continue to want to debate, while accusing me of this...let's go. Since Fake asked, no more passive aggressive.
First off, we're fucking talking about a single picture of Wong Fei Hung that happened to be in his Wiki page when I posted it. Who the **** cares that I got it from Wiki. Wiki is useful 99.9% of the times its used and is COMPLETELY ACCURATE in 99.9% of its articles, because of constant peer review, THE SAME THING HAPPENS HERE ON BULLSHIDO.
Please allow me (I have significant post graduate research experience) to correct you on something when it comes to citing sources. A vast majority of Wikipedia is credible because it has been peer reviewed and citations have been peer reviewed. Just because you may not find some of the information in it accurate/credible does not make the entire thing false.
Because of the community nature of it, there is always some false info in there...but I could say the same of any history text or for that matter, Bullshido).
Now it's my turn to call you all bullshitters who are posting about things you don't know: none of you know how Wikipedia works apparently, but feel free to post on it because you don't like some information there.
Apparently you all think Nature's study was bullshit? Going to post more about things you don't understand (like the controversial nature of scholarly research at levels above high school where there is often conflicting sources and disagreements?
6/25/2010 6:12pm, #19
6/25/2010 6:17pm, #20
"For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts. In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
"An expert-led investigation carried out by Nature--the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science," the journal wrote, "suggests that such high-profile examples (like the Seigenthaler and Curry situations) are the exception rather than the rule."
I guess you all assumed because I tripped up a few posts I was somehow mentally inferior to you all? I'm in my mid-30s, three degrees, four industry leading professional certifications, published author, and amateur martial artist. If you really want to debate things, try not barrel assing straight towards the same "YOU DUN KNOW WUT YUR TALKING BOUT" crap. I expect more intellectual discussions than that and you're all starting to sound the same.