Originally posted by SeitseThe good news is that as long as the educated users of wikipedia cares,
Those around here who embrace wikipedia as the source of all wisdom... tremble!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
😛
Nothing like the good ol' trustworthy knowledge upon payment of a small, worthy fee, uh
http://www.britannica.com/
😵
all errors are corrected, or if in dispute it's clearly noted. Wikipedia is the
marvel of Internet encyclopediac affairs. It just is.
Why, just a few weeks ago I had to look up certain things concerning
evolution and some idiot had replaced the whole page with bible rubbish
saying on the first day this and on the second day that. Luckily, when I
returned but minutes later, it was all about evolution again. Pheew, close
call, but the concept seems to work overall.
I wouldn't use wikipedia as the source of all truth though. In fact, I
wonder if there really is such a reference anywhere, commercially
sponsored or otherwise.
Originally posted by stockenlol, it happened to me when I checked something about Israel... the
Why, just a few weeks ago I had to look up certain things concerning
evolution and some idiot had replaced the whole page with bible rubbish
saying on the first day this and on the second day that. Luckily, when I
returned but minutes later, it was all about evolution again. Pheew, close
call, but the concept seems to work overall.
page was vandalized big time!
1 edit
Originally posted by Seitse🙂
lol, it happened to me when I checked something about Israel... the
page was vandalized big time!
Yeah, in the end, I guess the best thing to do is to double-check the facts
using several different sources. I try to do that, but I'm just so lazy and wiki
is so convenient. Besides, I trust the better knowing in this site to correct me
when I go off on a limb. 😉
Originally posted by eamon oIf the converse were also true, where would that place the millions of flag waving secular humanists that proudly affirm their patriotic support of the stars and stripes?(probably another thread but..)
why dont they just bring out their own biblicipedia americana and be done with it. funny guy on the radio this am, reckons if something is un-american its therefore un-christian 😵
wikipedia is not the bible. you are not required to believe blindly everything you see there. you take what you need and you think it through. every piece of science is written by someone prone to mistake.
as for that student, stupid him for lying and getting caught. maybe he thought that he will not be listened to if he discloses his true identity
Originally posted by kmax87yes,yes, history is written by biased people. but aren't all history books written this way? the authors are all humans. some subjectivism is bound to appear. and math and engineering can as well be faulty.(anyone can edit)
I couldnt find wiki more reliable for maths and engineering. But for history.......Now there's another barrel of onions.
i use wiki a lot but i always double check.(which should be done with other science books as well)
Originally posted by eamon oThread 63542
why dont they just bring out their own biblicipedia americana and be done with it. funny guy on the radio this am, reckons if something is un-american its therefore un-christian 😵
D
Originally posted by SeitseIt's no news that a source of information is fallible.
Those around here who embrace wikipedia as the source of all wisdom... tremble!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
😛
Nothing like the good ol' trustworthy knowledge upon payment of a small, worthy fee, uh
http://www.britannica.com/
😵
The beauty of Wikipedia is its self-correcting potential. Every expose of its past fallibility is a contribution to its future improvement.