Log in

View Full Version : wikipedia


tagnostic
June 10th, 2010, 12:10 PM
i personally don't feel that its a valid source
because it has too many uncitable people and opinions involved
i don't cite rush limbaugh or the huffington post for the same reasons
but with wiki its even worse because your not dealing with one persons opinion
that you already know is biased and how but with untold numbers of morons
who's bias'es you don't know,
everything regardless of the source should be shepardized and back checked
but its a helluva lot harder when its any moron on the planet that has anonymous input

citations
link (http://www.physorg.com/news162885743.html)
link (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/wikipedia-editing-proves-a-royal-embarrassment/)
link (http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%21C00F2616F39D0B2B%211094.entry)
wiki's own view
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_biography_controversy)
everybody does it
because everybody can
that makes it a non usable source

rzm61
June 10th, 2010, 05:35 PM
Ugh.
:icon_rolleyes:

tagnostic
June 11th, 2010, 01:40 AM
hehehehe
i never get
to have
any fun

rzm61
June 11th, 2010, 02:48 AM
NO FUN FOR YOU!


AND KEEP OF THE FUCKING GRASS, GOOGLE DAMMIT!








:icon_razz:

tagnostic
June 11th, 2010, 04:12 AM
fingus
is on
the
grass
i'm
on
the
40

rzm61
June 11th, 2010, 05:11 AM
Which is green enough.

Sir I'm sorry.
Can I please see some ID, and proof of citizenship? Thank you.

tagnostic
June 11th, 2010, 11:51 AM
make mine
a felony or
don't make
it at all