For Wikipedia fans...

On its own is crap.

Using it as an example of an opinion or such, on here, is ok in my book, if it's clear that you intend to use the wikipedia article as a means of displaying or giving an example of something you've taken part of elsewhere as well.

IE "just like [insert name of other text here], this wikipedia article seems to indicate...".

Wikipedia can't be taken as truth.

For instance, I've seen articles on it completely derailed by (what I assumed was) patriotic americans, in instances when what I assumed was fair historical accounts said something disagreeable about U.S. policies.

For instance, I remember a really daft discussion on whether the U.S. had had Noriega on their payroll.

This I'm sure goes in every direction, tho', as the girl says in Cheese's article, americans seem to be dominating it.

:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You think "enamored" = "attacked"?

Boy, you really are an independent thinker.

---

No I was referring to your second post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

BTW-

Is it your view, then, that Wikipedia and Conservapedia are oppositional as well; that is to say, do you ascribe to Wikipedia the status of Liberal organ?

---

It is not my view that they are opposite, That is the mission statement of the conservi founders.
I think wiki has no agenda one way or the other. I do feel that the right wingers have invented a conspiracy along the lines of the "liberal media" myth because it doesn't just give a right wing point of view. I also think it's unreliable simply because of the nature of the project.
conservi states an agenda, which kind of confirms it is unreliable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I think wiki has no agenda one way or the other. I do feel that the right wingers have invented a conspiracy along the lines of the "liberal media" myth because it doesn't just give a right wing point of view. I also think it's unreliable simply because of the nature of the project.

---

I don't care enough about Wikipedia to examine the idea of it's having any sort of agenda; it is crap, and that is sufficient for me to reject it and all arguments which rely on it.

It's just that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I think wiki has no agenda one way or the other. I do feel that the right wingers have invented a conspiracy along the lines of the "liberal media" myth because it doesn't just give a right wing point of view. I also think it's unreliable simply because of the nature of the project.

---

I don't care enough about Wikipedia to examine the idea of it's having any sort of agenda; it is crap, and that is sufficient for me to reject it and all arguments which rely on it.

It's just that simple.

---

I would say Wikipedia is quite excellent as a starting point for many things.
I do hate that kids are using it as sources for their papers though.

Also in relation to Cheese said, if I'm trying to find small tidbits of info on something like a game, music, etc is excellent.

In almost all cases that I've seen, Wiki points to other internet sources for verification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I don't care enough about Wikipedia to examine the idea of it's having any sort of agenda; it is crap, and that is sufficient for me to reject it and all arguments which rely on it.

It's just that simple.

---

I would say Wikipedia is quite excellent as a starting point for many things.
I do hate that kids are using it as sources for their papers though.

Also in relation to Cheese said, if I'm trying to find small tidbits of info on something like a game, music, etc is excellent.

In almost all cases that I've seen, Wiki points to other internet sources for verification.

---

By all means, then.

Use it to your heart's content. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I would say Wikipedia is quite excellent as a starting point for many things.
I do hate that kids are using it as sources for their papers though.

Also in relation to Cheese said, if I'm trying to find small tidbits of info on something like a game, music, etc is excellent.

In almost all cases that I've seen, Wiki points to other internet sources for verification.

---

By all means, then.

Use it to your heart's content. :)

---

No shit.

I have often found wikipedia to contain a consistently high-standard of information, for the purposes I require it.

Admittedly, the one time they let me down was they didn't mention that Dreamweaver was an FTP client, but I have found it in my heart to forgive them :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

By all means, then.

Use it to your heart's content. :)

---

No shit.

---

By golly, you're right about that, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

No shit.

---

By golly, you're right about that, too.

---

No shit.:wacko:

The vanity pictures on there make me laugh, the wife beater shirt entry is modeled by the least looking male I've encountered in said shirt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifebeater_%28shirt%29