Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Sep 17, 2013.
From the FNC article ...
Eric Barbour, a critic of Wikipedia who recently co-wrote a book on the site, told FoxNews.com, “Current Wikipedia administrators tend to be young males who don't write any content for it and love to fight amongst themselves.
"To them, Wikipedia is a giant video game, not an ‘encyclopedia.’ ”
Perhaps someone can tell when there ever was anything "encyclopedic" about Wikipedia? Tell me when it was not a "giant video game." It has been a giant waste of Internet space from the day it was launched. Slanted, inaccurate, outright lying articles that have little basis in fact and very little editorial oversight. Anyone can post anything, anyone can edit anything. It's was, is, and always will be a joke until the happy day the website goes dark.
Well the main reason I posted this is because apparently it is so full of porn.
Didn't know that, and thanks for the heads up. But not being a Wiki fan (you couldn't tell, could you?) I wouldn't have stumbled across it anyway, given I never darken the gateways of Wikipedia.
It is the title of the article in the op.
After I retired and got a second degree, the format for formal papers with footnotes, citations, etc had completely changed. We were not allowed to use any source from Wiki. Anyone can add their own opinion or fact to any subject. I have used Wiki to read about some of my ancestors in the family tree I am working on, but that is about it.
I meant, I did not know that before I read the OP. I couldn't have fed off the article you linked if I hadn't read the OP, ya know?
Wikipedia is just fine for the hard science stuff--astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. When you get into historical stuff it can get slanted. Actually, it's incredible how much of it is trivial. How many articles can you have about celebrities or TV shows?
I can tell you academia does not find it credible in any area.
Wikipedia and a "wiki" resource are two totally different things.
Also, where do you think information in the encyclopedia, books, news, and various online resources comes from?
We write it.
If I felt like it, which I don't, I could tell you where a lot of credible online, quotable, "you may use this as a source" information comes from. Suffice it to say it comes from humans!
Why does knowing the general age base or that it might come from someone next to you somehow make it less credible? There isn't some mysterious human with a giant brain and giant glasses hovering over the internet somewhere creating reliable sources for the world, magically accredited by only the top five brainiacs of the world.
For the same reason that getting information from NASA or the JPL about how to launch an earth-orbit payload would be better than asking the guy down the street. Credentials, credibility, and proven knowledge. Those aren't the kind of people contributing to Wikipedia, or any "wiki" for that matter. The opinion expressed that there is a difference between Wikipedia and any other wiki is like saying there is a difference between the desert two miles inside southeastern Utah and the desert two miles inside southwestern Colorado -- the only difference is their location.
No, but there are qualified academics with the education, knowledge and credentials to speak authoritatively to their areas of expertise. Those people write papers that are peer reviewed, proven scientifically or mathematically, and are then published, with such papers being the source material for the information that shows up in Britannica or other respected published collections of knowledge. That is as opposed to the people contributing to a "wiki" who don't necessarily have those credentials, and certainly don't have to prove they are credible and qualified to speak with authority on the subject they choose to post on the service. Being able to read is not an adequate qualification. You have to interpret what you read, and most contributors to these online sites barely have that as a qualification. Wikis are jokes, and no one should expect them to be credible, authoritative, or even truthful, because they are none of those things.
If I have NO idea what something is and want a quick overview (like if someone posted about something called twerking and I didn't know what it was), I'd go to wiki although I take the info with a grain of salt. That's about all i use it for - it's fast and easy. For real info though, I'll use other sources.
Wiki often links the "offical" website as well as other references as well.
If I had to write a fromal paper for a coure, I would do it on Wike- and thus use some of the Wike links in the footnotes.
Second - when Fox News decide to have the females ( I hesitate to use the term lady) on its TV news show wear more modest clothing, I might take the OP more seriously.
True enough, but usually sources are referenced. You could learn something from checking those out.
This is how I use wikipedia as well. That and for the episode guide of "Restaurant Impossible." :wavey:
The LADIES on Fox News Channel are no worse, and in most cases much better, than the women on other cable news networks, in that respect.
Sometimes the guy or girl down the street or next door, living in the mouse infested apartment, is perfectly qualified. The writers have to live somewhere, right? :thumbs:
Few and far between. And one thing I didn't mention is the fact the wikis don't require anyone to be qualified to do anything. Try suggesting you write an article for Encyclopedia Britannica without credentials and see how far you get. Sorry, Gina, wikis are worthless. Nothing will change that.