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
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