Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Wikipedia

01:19:10 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Dakarius:

I was just skimming through threads and I keep noticing wikipedia as a source. ppl., plz don't use this flawed encyclopedia wannabe as a source. It is a wonderful idea, but it is not practical. Being open to any layperson with a computer seriously compromises its credibility as well as several other things. I'm not saying there aren't some precious gems in it, but it is hardly worth searching through the muck for them. Use an acreddited encyclopedia like Britanica instead :)

01:25:37 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Seloc:

Whats your problem with wikipedia?

01:40:24 Jul 10th 07 - Sir Spud:

In other words Seloc: Anyone can change the text to anything on Wikipedia. It happens all the time. Stupid people go on there and change things and make it completly wrong or put something in there that they believe but is really not true.

02:01:31 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Dudewhostolemynamecondinho:

that is why they ask for sources of that info... duh! if you give false info or with no back prouf your text will be erased...

02:14:54 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

Sure, Wikipedia is not accepted as a source if you study at the univeristy, but our discussions here is hardly at that level.

04:03:44 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Sloth:

Let's search Encyclopedia Britannica for Wikipedia and link it.

Here it is.

Now let's search Wikipedia for Encyclopedia Britannica and link that.

Here it is.

(and don't forget their references at the bottom of the page)

If one can't understand why no one gives two *@$*'s about Britannica after that, then there's no hope.

And by the way, do you honestly think citing Encyclopedia Britannica in a research paper at university is going to be looked upon favourably?

10:09:47 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Sakaal II:

Wikipedia is moderated and has systematic quality control. Surely it is up to the reader to use his or her own brain to filter the information. Of course it can take anything from a few minutes to a few weeks to make the corrections when someone posts questionable information there. In my experience the Wikipedia editors are relatively quick (hours or days) to remove or tag suspicious articles. Most of the articles I look up in Wikipedia are high quality, but a significant number (though much fewer) are biased or incomplete.

However, Wikipedia has far more high quality information easily and freely available than almost any other single source on the web. When you really need rock solid scientific reference material, Wikipedia may help you quickly find some references and get a quick overview on the topic, but of course you need the original sources for scientific reference. Quite regularly I find Wikipedia articles that are as good as any scientific papers on the topic matter. For example at work (private sector) Wikipedia is usually more than a good reference. In science we need more steady sources of course.

18:03:18 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

some people just hide behind its facts and dont even try to logic with you thats the problem.... even the holy books have less reference credibility...

in a way its like evolution is a lie look this says taht..... :p

22:45:34 Jul 10th 07 - Sir Tiber Septim II:

*Walks in and starts watching the argument

22:53:40 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Sakaal II:


I thought it is only possible to hide behind disinformation or metaforas... How does one hide behind facts?

Yes, holy books have less reference credibility. I am glad you agree on that.

Could you translate the following sentence you wrote: "in a way its like evolution is a lie look this says that..." :p
What does it mean?

23:06:58 Jul 10th 07 - Mr. Swofty:

Someone claims evolution is a lie. He hides behind 'a book' that says so..

00:21:56 Jul 11th 07 - Mr. Seloc:

"the cat in the hat" doesn't claim evolution is a lie.....

09:50:49 Jul 14th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Actually I use Wiki only to find Reference Links. Much more useful and accurate. I find all my sites in one go.

19:23:26 Jul 14th 07 - Sir Cephorus Septim:

*Cephorus pushes a popcorn cart in and starts watching the argument

19:30:23 Jul 14th 07 - Sir Frederick:

That its easily editable is actually a point in favor of Wikipedia instead of a flaw and who says Brittanica doesnt have any flaws? Wikipedia is open and is scrutinized for being so, but there's no-one that can actually check the sources and quality of Brittanica in contrary to Wikipedia.

Many of the writings on Wikipedia are actually written by experts, especially in the field of Computer Science. Ive found no incorrect information on that topic on wikipedia, probably also because of its nature.

14:18:37 Jul 24th 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

19:58:46 Jul 24th 07 - Mr. Seloc:

lol guys(both genders) look up ginger ninja on wikipedia it hilarious

13:26:36 Jul 29th 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

lol i read the article in the site i give the owner is totaly OK.
but still the site is under alot of outside pressure..

for instance u cant even look for algerian genocide.
couse no such thing supposedly exist what you are refred to is algerian war.
and that is very one sided still.


13:34:33 Jul 29th 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

Death toll

''The FLN estimated in 1962 that nearly eight years of revolution had cost 1.5 million dead from war-related causes.'' -->( EVIL REVOLUTION KILLING PEOPLE.)

Some other Algerian sources later put the figure at approximately 1 million dead, while French officials estimated it at 350,000.

(8 lines of what the french 'sources')

'French military authorities listed their losses at nearly 18,000 dead (6,000 from non-combat-related causes) and 65,000 wounded. European descended civilian casualties exceeded 10,000 (including 3,000 dead) in 42,000 recorded terrorist incidents. According to French figures, security forces killed 141,000 rebel combatants, and more than 12,000 Algerians died in internal FLN purges during the war. An additional 5,000 died in the "café wars" in France between the FLN and rival Algerian groups. French sources also estimated that 70,000 Muslim civilians were killed, or abducted and presumed killed, by the FLN.'

( what is a British historian and a French philosopher, sociologist and political scientist thinks)

Historians, like Alistair Horne and Raymond Aron, consider the actual figure of war dead to be far higher than the original FLN and official French estimates, but below the 1 million adopted by the Algerian government. Horne has estimated Algerian casualties during the span of eight years to be around 700,000. Uncounted thousands of Muslim civilians lost their lives in French army ratissages, bombing raids, and vigilante reprisals. The war uprooted more than 2 million Algerians, who were forced to relocate in French camps or to flee to Morocco, Tunisia, and into the Algerian hinterland, where many thousands died of starvation, disease, and exposure. In addition large numbers of pro-French Muslims were murdered when the FLN settled accounts after independence.

TOTAL 20 lines what mostly french say.

0.7  lines what algeria said ( 1 number)

[Top]  Pages:   1 

Username: Don't have an account - Sign up!
Password: Forgot your password - Retrive it!

My bookmarksOld forum design

- close -
  Copyright © 1999-2018 Visual Utopia. All rights reserved. Page loaded in 0 seconds. Server time: 7:45:41 AM