For Wikipedia fans...

[j2k4]

I tripped over this the other day...

The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its Website's reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their 10 things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is: "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this."

I have yet to find the entire statement from which this tidbit was extracted.

[vidcc]

Kangaroo

Origins

Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined whether kangaroos form a holobarmin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.


oh silly me....that's from conservapedia

[j2k4]

they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.

This must have occurred toward the end of the last episode of global warming.

oh silly me....that's from conservapedia

That last is a superb example of your on-going attempt to mis-characterize those who disagree with you.

You assume, by quoting this "conservapedia" that I must use it regularly, and probably even support it financially.

I assure you I had never even heard of it until you cited it here, and, for your further information, I do not frequent any conservative blogs.

Perhaps you should apply these tactics to someone for whom they are applicable.

[vidcc]

I can't make up my mind if you are you are simply paranoid or still so egotistical that you think everything is about you and want to consider yourself a victim of some great conspiracy.

You go ahead, make your assumptions, if it helps you get by.

I agree that wiki is not a reliable source of factual information, but as the subject was wiki and the point was the admittance

"We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this."

I thought I would interject the competition...the "anti-wiki" so to speak

1. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.

2. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.

3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children.

4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.

5. We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. Wikipedia claims to allow free use of its material, but in fact it is burdensome to comply with all of Wikipedia's copyright restrictions.

6. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.

7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.

8. We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like community property belonging to everyone, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users.

"conservative facts" ???????

The Commandments

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new users on how to put footnotes in a article.
3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[1]

Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning. Sockpuppets are also blocked.

[100%]

At least they are honest in realtion to change.

[j2k4]

I can't make up my mind if you are you are simply paranoid or still so egotistical that you think everything is about you and want to consider yourself a victim of some great conspiracy.

You go ahead, make your assumptions, if it helps you get by.

Paranoid?

No.

Egotistical?

A matter of opinion, I'd say.

Anyway, since I am a conservative while you claim to be utterly independent, I wonder also how you find yourself to so consistantly post an oppositional point-of-view... I should not have thought you to be so enamored.

Perhaps you could allow someone else a turn.

[Cheese]

Wikipedia is useful if I want to back up a point I've made in Gameworld about some PC game but I won't be using it as a source in my essays or dissertations.

In short, it's great for "fluff" but you should never use it for proper research (though maybe, just maybe, as a Pilgrim Step to break you in to a new topic).

I dislike the fact that certain people have taken over pages for their own agendas. The vanity picture (and the debate that surrounds it) for "semen", for instance, is disturbing, wrong and unintentinally hilarious.

The saga of publicgirluk is required reading in regards to the idiocy of Wikipedians: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Publicgirluk

[vidcc]

Anyway, since I am a conservative while you claim to be utterly independent, I wonder also how you find yourself to so consistantly post an oppositional point-of-view... I should not have thought you to be so enamored.

I post opposing points of view to what is said, not to who says it. This includes when I quote someone. I am responding to what they say not who they are. I don't care if the person has one particular agenda.
I seldom feel the need to post in agreement. While it's nice to know that others share similar views it doesn't make for interesting debate.

In this thread I posted an entry from a competitor to wiki to give a little context about reliability and you decided that it was about you. I neither quoted you or mentioned your name. Nor did I place any comment on it other than a couple of smiles.

From that you decided you were being attacked personally.

[Busyman™]

This must have occurred toward the end of the last episode of global warming.

oh silly me....that's from conservapedia

That last is a superb example of your on-going attempt to mis-characterize those who disagree with you.

You assume, by quoting this "conservapedia" that I must use it regularly, and probably even support it financially.

I assure you I had never even heard of it until you cited it here, and, for your further information, I do not frequent any conservative blogs.

Perhaps you should apply these tactics to someone for whom they are applicable.

WTF

[j2k4]

Wikipedia is useful if I want to back up a point I've made in Gameworld about some PC game but I won't be using it as a source in my essays or dissertations.

In short, it's great for "fluff" but you should never use it for proper research (http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Publicgirluk

The only point I ever tried to make with regard to Wikipedia.

Anyway, since I am a conservative while you claim to be utterly independent, I wonder also how you find yourself to so consistantly post an oppositional point-of-view... I should not have thought you to be so enamored.

I post opposing points of view to what is said, not to who says it. This includes when I quote someone. I am responding to what they say not who they are. I don't care if the person has one particular agenda.
I seldom feel the need to post in agreement. While it's nice to know that others share similar views it doesn't make for interesting debate.

In this thread I posted an entry from a competitor to wiki to give a little context about reliability and you decided that it was about you. I neither quoted you or mentioned your name. Nor did I place any comment on it other than a couple of smiles.

From that you decided you were being attacked personally.

You think "enamored" = "attacked"?

Boy, you really are an independent thinker.

I was hoping perhaps you merely meant to molest me somehow.

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?