For Wikipedia fans...

[Barbarossa]

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

A skinny guy in a vest. Is it Mr Muscle?

[Cheese]

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

A skinny guy in a vest. Is it Mr Muscle?

I got an infraction or whatnot on there last year because I changed the caption to "A somewhat male wearing a wifebeater."

[Biggles]

I have to confess to being baffled as to why there is an issue over Wikipedia. Like all reference overviews it can only provide a introduction to any topic. The real value of Wikipedia is in the links to external sources this does require a bit of reading and critical thinking of course.

Wikipedia is huge and has an enormous raft of non-controversial information - for example if one wanted to check up on "adder"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder

I would like to ask what the problem is with this entry.

There may be topics like Darwinism which are controversial to some and obviously political entries will be subject to much heated debate. However, this is true of any encyclopedia attempting to cover current issues.

I have scanned over a number of Wikipedia pages on British history and found them to be reasonably sound and, more importantly, reference a variety of good historians without any noticeable political bias.

There seems to me to be a desire to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply over a small number of controversial entries dealing with current affairs and current scientific debate.

btw the Conservapedia is not for real surely - rafts of rotting vegetation all the way to Australia - for the love of stuff!

[vidcc]

btw the Conservapedia is not for real surely - rafts of rotting vegetation all the way to Australia - for the love of stuff!

The founders are serious, they think wiki is a left wing project written by the ghost of chairman mao. much like the fight to ban evolution and place creationism in science classes they are serious. If they can be taken seriously is a different question altogether. However like wiki they have both reasonably solid entries and questionable entries. Conservi isn't as big a project yet as it's still in its infancy.

[j2k4]

Wikipedia is huge and has an enormous raft of non-controversial information - for example if one wanted to check up on "adder"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder

I would like to ask what the problem is with this entry.

I'll bet if you try "subtracter", "divider", and "multiplier" as well that they will add up to "accountant".

[GepperRankins]

btw the Conservapedia is not for real surely - rafts of rotting vegetation all the way to Australia - for the love of stuff!

The founders are serious, they think wiki is a left wing project written by the ghost of chairman mao. much like the fight to ban evolution and place creationism in science classes they are serious. If they can be taken seriously is a different question altogether. However like wiki they have both reasonably solid entries and questionable entries. Conservi isn't as big a project yet as it's still in its infancy.

no wai

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia founded by Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. It has millions of entries on topics ranging from phrases used by obscure rock bands[1] to arcane British royalty.[2] Its abundant use of gossip attracts many visitors.[3] Content on Wikipedia is controlled by the cumbersome GNU "Free" Documentation License (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia. Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource.
Multilingual Wikipedia home page
Multilingual Wikipedia home page

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, a company that sold pornographic pictures.[4] Since 2003 Wikipedia has been run by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hillary Clinton's friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." [3]

Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show "The View" in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position."

Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.
[edit]

[carlosjavier]

I have to say that, at least for me, Wikipedia is more like a very organized fansite with the breadth and depth of an extremely large Encyclopedia. All people have to know is that Wikipedia is, at its essence, maintained by the general public and not specifically by any scholars. That said, it can be just as informative and valuable as any official reference source. As somebody on here said in an earlier post, it's a great tool for introduction to a topic and source of links. People need to always cross-reference their information, anyway.

[j2k4]

I have to say that, at least for me, Wikipedia is more like a very organized fansite with the breadth and depth of an extremely large Encyclopedia. All people have to know is that Wikipedia is, at its essence, maintained by the general public and not specifically by any scholars. That said, it can be just as informative and valuable as any official reference source. As somebody on here said in an earlier post, it's a great tool for introduction to a topic and source of links. People need to always cross-reference their information, anyway.

That's about right.

It needs to be seen for what it is, rather than be accorded a status it does not possess.

[Busyman™]

I have to say that, at least for me, Wikipedia is more like a very organized fansite with the breadth and depth of an extremely large Encyclopedia. All people have to know is that Wikipedia is, at its essence, maintained by the general public and not specifically by any scholars. That said, it can be just as informative and valuable as any official reference source. As somebody on here said in an earlier post, it's a great tool for introduction to a topic and source of links. People need to always cross-reference their information, anyway.

That's about right.

It needs to be seen for what it is, rather than be accorded a status it does not possess.

Mmk what status is that?

It still is a great resource of information. In fact, I'd say it's the single best resource of information simply due to it's range and reference to links.

I can find info on a football players stat, an obscure video game, a war, a manufacturer, an internet hoax, etc.....and it's all in one spot.

Hell people ask for info on this very forum and folks run with it even without a reference. Wiki has references.

[vidcc]

As with any informational source online one should always cross reference. Before the internet came along we did this in libraries, why should we do any different today. It appears though that kev is singling out wiki (for whatever personal reason) as if someone has suggested it's infallible.



Admittedly people take single source opinions and misrepresentations as fact if that opinion appeals to them. Be it dittoheads that listen to Rush or the lazy student that doesn't want to do his own work.


Wiki is a good source as part of research depending on the subject. Sometimes it will be the most accurate source, sometimes the most unreliable.