NationStates Jolt Archive

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

Your opinion is noted and cast aside as irrelevant.

You might notice the little superscript numbers after certain passages on Wikipedia. Those are sources. Might do you a little good to look into them.

This isn't university mate, nor are we academics (well some of us are but we don't bother about that on here) if we want to use Wikipedia we will. Trust me mate I tried arguing this as well, but I came to the conclusion "fuck it."

You might notice the little superscript numbers after certain passages on Wikipedia. Those are sources. Might do you a little good to look into them.

Exactly. Wikipedia is a source of sources and in that, it has value. Not to mention as a font of general encyclopedic knowledge.

Awww, isn't it cute when n00bs act all important and order people around?

Alrighty then. WikiNews still fine then?

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Asking nicely will not change habits. People will still use wiki here.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

I heard it was pretty reliable:

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)

:p;)

Exactly. Wikipedia is a source of sources and in that, it has value. Not to mention as a font of general encyclopedic knowledge.

Also considering all the modding they do around there. Some of that general knowledge is the most accurate stuff you'll find.

Wikipedia may not be a "reliable source," but it is a good jumping-off point for pretty much everything you would want to know.

Exactly. Wikipedia is a source of sources and in that, it has value. Not to mention as a font of general encyclopedic knowledge.
Except they deleted the page for "The Noob" webcomic as irrelevant. Irrelevant?!?!? I'll never use it again :mad:
LG, let's start our own, we'll call it "Wackypedia." If it's not amusing, it's gone! :tongue:

If it's not amusing, it's gone! :tongue:

I thought that was the inspiration behind "Conservapedia"?! :wink: ;)

If the sun is too bright, don't look at it.

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse)

I thought it was Fox that wasn't a news source.

Wikipedia is NOT a news source.... Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.
[Citation needed]

I thought it was Fox that wasn't a news source.

Bah, Fox is a tabloid :p

Wikipedia is hopelessly biased, opinionated piece of garbage...

...which makes it absolutely critical in any Internet Debate. :)

Except they deleted the page for "The Noob" webcomic as irrelevant. Irrelevant?!?!? I'll never use it again :mad:
LG, let's start our own, we'll call it "Wackypedia." If it's not amusing, it's gone! :tongue:

Already exists. :(

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

Why would I use Wikipedia for News? :confused:

I heard it was pretty reliable:

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)

:p;)

*head asplode*

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

Don't you worry, old chap; I never cite sources.

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

If the article provides sources, why can I not use it?

Who the hell are you again?

It's not a porn site either, but you don't see me not masturbating to the creepy anatomy/sexuality articles with user-created uploaded content.

Who the hell are you again?

A Reagan lovin', Obama hatin' (commie!), all American boy.

Who the hell are you again?

One could ask the same question of you.

One could ask the same question of you.
you could

but you already know you dont want to know the answer.

One could ask the same question of you.

I'm very sure one could. However, you'll note, I haven't created threads instructing a community I'm new in, have no reputation in, and am a practical unknown, telling people what they should and should not do.

I'm very sure one could. However, you'll note, I haven't created threads instructing a community I'm new in, have no reputation in, and am a practical unknown, telling people what they should and should not do.

I just wanted to get to know you better Neo, how about dinner? say 8? I know the perfect little out of the way restaurant where we can be alone. :D

One could ask the same question of you.

You already know.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OUd8uTkPDD4/RxkBqQ-1EQI/AAAAAAAAAyY/I6UZEShQ_sU/s400/Jumping%2Bpuddles%2Bcolor-B%26W.jpg

You already know.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OUd8uTkPDD4/RxkBqQ-1EQI/AAAAAAAAAyY/I6UZEShQ_sU/s400/Jumping%2Bpuddles%2Bcolor-B%26W.jpg

Epic win.

You already know.

*snip piccy*

You chose the wrong picture.

It should have been the one where he's wearing his catsuit.

Exactly. Wikipedia is a source of sources and in that, it has value. Not to mention as a font of general encyclopedic knowledge.

Awww, isn't it cute when n00bs act all important and order people around?

To be honest, I feel his n00by pain. Wiki is indeed a good source for better sources and a decent quick reference site for general facts. But people do cite it like it was the Holy OED Of The Last Word. That can get annoying. But I have given up shoveling against that tide.

I like the bipartisan response to this thread. Whatever our differences, Generalites can be counted on to unite in the face of an outsider telling us what to do.

I like the bipartisan response to this thread. Whatever our differences, Generalites can be counted on to unite in the face of an outsider telling us what to do.
Classic. It proves we are real community. :D

I just wanted to get to know you better Neo, how about dinner? say 8? I know the perfect little out of the way restaurant where we can be alone. :D

I suppose we could meet somewhere in the middle of us. How about Egypt?

Classic. It proves we are real community. :D

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/4766/film/lob/pfj.jpg

NSG. We fight together!

To be honest, I feel his n00by pain. Wiki is indeed a good source for better sources and a decent quick reference site for general facts. But people do cite it like it was the Holy OED Of The Last Word. That can get annoying. But I have given up shoveling against that tide.

well, the problem is, for all I hear about "WIKI IS NOT A SOURCE!" I have yet to encounter anyone (well, it might have happened once or twice) actually demonstrably show something another poster quoted from Wiki as being false.

I suppose we could meet somewhere in the middle of us. How about Egypt?

Yeah Egypt is alright but talk about going the long way around, I was thinking more like Hawaii?

well, the problem is, for all I hear about "WIKI IS NOT A SOURCE!" I have yet to encounter anyone (well, it might have happened once or twice) actually demonstrably show something another poster quoted from Wiki as being false.
It's not so much that Wiki is false -- although I do remember someone -- might have been DK or one of our other habitual makers of bad arguments -- citing a Wiki article about Muslims or Jews or Jewish Muslims or someone they hated in which Wiki had stuck up red flags of bias and inaccuracy, and that poster was trying to use this horrendously propagandistic article as the basis of an argument and would not budge from it.

But to me, more the problem is when posters are making claims of fact that are controversial, and they'll cite the Wiki article and expect everyone to accept that. What they should do is follow Wiki's source links to find the originators of the data, because those are the authors who have the credentials.

And when someone (me) points that out, they get all angry and stuff.

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/funny-pictures-one-cat-does-not-enjoy-playing-tag.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/4766/film/lob/pfj.jpg

NSG. We fight together!
I think that's the most perfect portrait of NSG to date. :D

I think that's the most perfect portrait of NSG to date. :D
Conservative/libertarian section.
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/4766/film/lob/popularf.jpg

It's not so much that Wiki is false -- although I do remember someone -- might have been DK or one of our other habitual makers of bad arguments -- citing a Wiki article about Muslims or Jews or Jewish Muslims or someone they hated in which Wiki had stuck up red flags of bias and inaccuracy, and that poster was trying to use this horrendously propagandistic article as the basis of an argument and would not budge from it.

But to me, more the problem is when posters are making claims of fact that are controversial, and they'll cite the Wiki article and expect everyone to accept that. What they should do is follow Wiki's source links to find the originators of the data, because those are the authors who have the credentials.

And when someone (me) points that out, they get all angry and stuff.

ok, fair enough. In my experience though, Wiki is a pretty good place for FACTS. Opinion is...debatable.

Wikipedia is hopelessly biased, opinionated piece of garbage...

...which makes it absolutely critical in any Internet Debate. :)

Best reply today!!!

I just felt like venting a bit about wikipedia....and I did. Now its 3 pages in...egads.

Use it all you want, use it for a "jumping off point" but as a source itself, it only shows the weakness in argument.

OPINION

I know I am very important; my mother told me so, yet Wikipedia does not confirm this fact anywhere.

Awww, isn't it cute when n00bs act all important and order people around?
Do not say that.
hehehe, just kidding...

...or am I?

Best reply today!!!

I just felt like venting a bit about wikipedia....and I did. Now its 3 pages in...egads.

Use it all you want, use it for a "jumping off point" but as a source itself, it only shows the weakness in argument.

OPINION

If you point is any good then you should be able to shoot down the wiki article and the linked sources that support it.

Using a wiki article is convenient and the information in one is usually accurate. When articles suck there are often big banners at the top telling you so, these are the articles that should be used with care.

Jawohl Mein Furher! (pardon my horrid German spelling)

Jawohl Mein Furher! (pardon my horrid German spelling)

Nein, ich werde Ihre Rechtschreibung nicht entschuldigen.

ok, fair enough. In my experience though, Wiki is a pretty good place for FACTS. Opinion is...debatable.

In my experience it's pretty bad at that but I only read the zoology and palaeontology articles so that might be a reason.

Jawohl Mein Furher! (pardon my horrid German spelling)

Minus the umlauts, I don't know how to do them, it's Fuhrer.

Nein, ich werde Ihre Rechtschreibung nicht entschuldigen.
Richtig!

Do not say that.
Awww, isn't it cute when n00bs act all important and order people around?

"Vandalize every equation."
-Anonymous on TOW

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

I admit it is a pet peeve of mine.
However the wide number of debates we have on nsg on a daily basis makes not using it impossible.

Best reply today!!!

I just felt like venting a bit about wikipedia....and I did. Now its 3 pages in...egads.

Use it all you want, use it for a "jumping off point" but as a source itself, it only shows the weakness in argument.

OPINION

An easily available source, with a wide range of content, recognised by almost anyone that might possibly be involved in a debate, AND with an established reliability/bias/flaws provenance - including self-policing?

It's a godsend, man.

Your argument is, thus, weak - and with no need to even invoke Wiki (pbuh).

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.
Says the dude who attempted to use an editorial as a factual source in another thread.

I heard it was pretty reliable:

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)

:p;)

I did a Speech in Public Speaking on the reliability of Wikipedia, I used the BBC story and its various links to other studies as sources so I wouldnt have to source Wikipedia, lol...

I got an A on that Speech...

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

Source?



:p

Source?



:p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
The major points of criticism of Wikipedia are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals. Specific criticisms include:

* exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism of its content
* attempts by strongly opinionated editors to dominate articles
* inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing for controversial assertions in articles
* edit wars and other types of nonconstructive conflict among editors
* criticism of Wikipedia taken as personal attacks upon it

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

Nope, not a real source (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588405).

Nope, not a real source (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588405).

BUT....But....


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/protestwarriors/ScannersExplodingHead.gif?t=1238470194

BUT....But....


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/protestwarriors/ScannersExplodingHead.gif?t=1238470194

Exactly.

They did get caught out with that entry that got posted about John Seigenthaler being involved in the Kennedy assasination, but they did say they fixed that, and took steps to try and keep stuff like that from happening again.

If I'm arguing with a friend about whether it was Ice Cube or Ice T that did 'Fuck The Police' yeah, I'll use Wikipedia. If I'm doing serious research for someone who is paying me for serious research, I'll use something else.

BUT....But....


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/protestwarriors/ScannersExplodingHead.gif?t=1238470194

Oh dear. What is that from, anyway?

Nor is it a good historical reference. Please refrain from using it to "support" an argument you are making.

Thanks in advance.

Don't thank me, because I shall not refrain from using the wiki to uphold my arguments.

Don't thank me, because I shall not refrain from using the wiki to uphold my arguments.

As Colbert said, reality "has a liberal bias". Try to use something more balanced.

As Colbert said, reality "has a liberal bias". Try to use something more balanced.

I use Alice's Adventures in Wonderland for all my sourcing needs. Though once in a while, when things get political, I'll use http://images.1aauto.com/MNL/1AMNL00104.jpg

An easily available source, with a wide range of content, recognised by almost anyone that might possibly be involved in a debate, AND with an established reliability/bias/flaws provenance - including self-policing?

It's a godsend, man.

Your argument is, thus, weak - and with no need to even invoke Wiki (pbuh).

Wiki is an anthropomorphic entity with prophet status now?

Where can I meet it?

Your opinion is noted and cast aside as irrelevant.


Sigging it!

Oh dear. What is that from, anyway?

It's from a wonderfully horrible movie called Scanners

Oh dear. What is that from, anyway?

Scanners.

EDIT: You win this round, LG.

Scanners.

EDIT: You win this round, LG.

Yay! *dances*