Wong Fei Hung vs Wikipedia

[Sri Hanuman]

Almost there

[W. Rabbit]

Hooboy... get ready for it

Ready for what smart ass? Vindication? I've posted a credible science journal's independent expert peer review of Wikipedia...but you're just going to say "deeeer wiki is teh suck". Why, did your teacher fail you for using Wiki for research?

You guys still can't just deal with the fact that I grabbed a photo from Wikipedia..not text. You've made this into a Wiki vs. Bullshido thing and so blame yourselves for how it turned out.

-ED

[Sri Hanuman]

Nope, waiting for your ego to fully inflate.

[W. Rabbit]

Almost there

Talk about worthless, self glamorizing, antagonistic posts. You really are a jerkoff.

-ED

[Sri Hanuman]

No arguement there, you got me down.
Still want that mirror?

[W. Rabbit]

Nope, waiting for your ego to fully inflate.

You have got to be kidding me. You sit and spew all this unnecessary nonsense at me, in an egotistical attempt to keep discrediting whatever I say. And you have the nerve to call someone defending their own posts egotistical?

I'll admit I have (and you have) egos. But yours is the only one inflating.

-ED

[W. Rabbit]

Heh, for someone who keeps getting called egotistical I seem to do a lot of please, thank you, sorry, and excuse mes around this site. But I'm starting to get it. I need to tell you to just **** the **** off and **** off some more.

Is it ego to ask questions about Wong Fei Hung, post relevant studies about Wikipedia's accuracy and all that? No, its ego to keep coming after someone trying to subdue them mentally, something you fail terribly at (regarding me) at this stage and beyond. Call that ego or whatever you feel necessary to try to convince yourself you're not the ass end of this conversation.

-ED

[Uncle Skippy]

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,

87.56% of statistics are made up on the spot.

THE SAME THING HAPPENS HERE ON BULLSHIDO.

Wrong. People here have thick skins and can take criticism.

Wikipedia contributors and editors typically don't and will flex their article lock-down or ban muscles if somebody questions their revisions, ESPECIALLY if they are care-taker on an article.

The culture of Wikipedia and the group-speak mentality make it a completely unreliable source in research.

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.

I also have a significant amount of post graduate research experience.

Wikipedia is NOT peer reviewed. The editing hierarchy makes it impossible for it to be a true peer reviewed source. Corrections to articles to remove bias in outcomes are routinely dismissed in favor of removing or minimizing controversy. If they aren't going to discuss the controversy in-depth, then they shouldn't be discussing the original subject to begin with.

Articles that refer to notable sources, such as Nature, NEJM, etc... are just thin wrapper around the content of those articles because of the 'No New Research' rule.

So what is left?

Opinions on interpretations of journal articles as well has half-assed attempts to appear unbiased when discussing controversy ("Oh god! I hope we don't hurt anybody's feelings!").

none of you know how Wikipedia works apparently,

OBVIOUSLY we only know how to roll around and punch people in the face. Nope. No false assumption or overgeneralization there.

[It is Fake]

I'll admit I have (and you have) egos. But yours is the only one inflating.

Really? who posted this appeal to authority?

I'm in my mid-30s, three degrees, four industry leading professional certifications, published author, and amateur martial artist.

Idiot oh and read my post carefully it was very specific.

[W. Rabbit]

The culture of Wikipedia and the group-speak mentality make it a completely unreliable source in research.

Articles that refer to notable sources, such as Nature, NEJM, etc... are just thin wrapper around the content of those articles because of the 'No New Research' rule.

OBVIOUSLY we only know how to roll around and punch people in the face. Nope. No false assumption or overgeneralization there.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you actually made an effort to debate this with me, rather than some stupid 1-2 line posts about ego, candor, or whatever.

I still don't agree about Wikipedia being "completely unreliable" since at any given time it is still almost entirely accurate in terms of FACTUAL information (e.g. E=mc^2).

Let's go review the computer engineering sections together, I have and its 100% accurate, down to the citations which often include texts I myself have read.

Let's read the sections on Western music and its tonal systems...hmm 100% accurate.

Bullshido may exist to serve those who want info verified by actual martial artists (thats why I came here). But plenty of the people adding/reviewing information in Wikipedia are, in fact, authorities on the subject. I know this because I have taken part and am an authority on several subjects.

And as far as assumptions I am not falsely assuming anything about YOU or people who actually want to debate intelligently. But its a fact many people in these forums do not DEBATE INTELLIGENTLY (whether right or as I can be now and then, wrong).

-ED