1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    19 Jul '13 15:32
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    He didn't refer you to a Wikipedia link, that's a point in his favor.

    By the way, have you heard about Wikipedia's 'edit wars'? Apparently people have been going in and editing other peoples contributions, and the problem has been escalating. I don't trust Widipedia except for looking at non-controversial topics, because it's the controversial topics t ...[text shortened]... so I'm not the least bit surprised Wikipedia is the preferred reference of choice here.
    No, haven't heard that. I just pick out the parts I agree with anyway. So it doesn't matter to me.

    The Instructor
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    19 Jul '13 15:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It must be noted however that Wikipedia is just as good or better than any other encyclopedia.
    For specific topics there may be more reliable sources and certainly there will often be sources with more information.
    But no source is inerrant, not even peer reviewed material by top scientists in a given field.
    If I give a Wikipedia page to support an arg ...[text shortened]... ame wars, and other bias therefore you are wrong' just doesn't constitute a counter argument.
    Only the Holy Bible is inerrant. You're welcome.

    The Instructor
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Jul '13 16:03
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Only the Holy Bible is inerrant. You're welcome.

    The Instructor
    Luckily no actual such 'Bible' exists. But if you want to discuss that, take it to spirituality please.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree