Man. You are just soooo confused that you can't even see up...

I used MERRIAM WEBSTER'S definition of "marriage".
Not "wikipedia".

Unbelievable!


And AGAIN, you avoided the fact that a study found Wikipedia JUST AS RELIABLE as Britannica.

You're just completely lost, aren't you...

I think that study was talking about the science articles. Wikipedia is pretty accurate, I think, but all in all not a credible source of information in academia. I cited it a few times in papers this year, all of the information I cited was true and I could have found it in a more generally accepted credible source. I was confidident that I knew the information was true but I also knew I had to cite it and not plagarize. I never received any comments about it. Now that I think about it, one thing that turned me off about the 9/11 conspiracy documentary Loose Change was the fact that it cited Wikipedia for some very outlandish claims. Simple sentences were cited as evidence that these things actually happened. I do not agree with this whatsoever. In theory, those exact sentences could have been inserted by the director of the film himself, therby making the use of Wikipedia in this circumstance an uncredible source.

And I acknowledge that as well.
I typically use it as a starting point. Possibly a reference in some more benign issues that aren't really "debatable". Ergo, it's a fact that this did happen and the like...

When there is a debate on an actual issue, I don't think I've ever said anything like "You're wrong because Wikipedia says ...".

And moreover, a LOT of what they have on their has references and citations. Often web-links where you can go to the original info.
Can it have problems? Sure. Undeniably.
If a person is doing something that wants to be printable for peer-review (like a thesis paper or something of that nature), Wikipedia should not be cited. Especially when it can typically tell you where to go for the original citation.
(And as a side-note, it's been ages since I looked at an Encyclopedia. Do they give citations?)

But in a LOT of cases, there's no reason why this ready resource should be ignored.
(Not saying you were saying that, but rather trying to refine my opinion on Wikipedia.)


Another thought...
What if somebody down the road goes in and changes from what was "cited" to something new. A person could try to verify the citation, and find out that the claim made in the movie isn't mentioned, or even contradicted by Wikipedia.
Then, the movie director has egg on his face and the yolk is on him...

Who did the study....wikipedia? I can do a study also and you wont like the results.

Bingo. There is only one problem in your answer that is going to bother foundit...........It is true and just plain common sense.

No. Wikipedia didn't do the study.
READ the article I linked to.
You aren't even worth arguing with if you can't be bothered to comprehend what's going on...

You are just utterly clueless.
His post did not "bother" me at all. In fact, I think you missed a good portion of his point.

And you made a crucial mistake, which you often make, in assuming that my position was 180 degrees opposed to yours...

Good. I could probably make more sense to you if I had consumed a bottle of Thunderbird.

I understood the last sentence where it said that in this instance it would be an uncredible source. So you avoid his point and go after me for agreeing with him. You just like to hound me thats' all. All these commemnts about Alzheimers and so on. You just can't help yourself.

Did you even bother to READ to figure out WHAT INSTANCE he was referring to???
I'm guessing you didn't.

Let me repeat for you...
"Now that I think about it, one thing that turned me off about the 9/11 conspiracy documentary Loose Change was the fact that it cited Wikipedia for some very outlandish claims. Simple sentences were cited as evidence that these things actually happened. I do not agree with this whatsoever. In theory, those exact sentences could have been inserted by the director of the film himself, therby making the use of Wikipedia in this circumstance an uncredible source."


DAMN you're just clueless.
I DID respond to his post. Go back and READ.

You are unbelievably clueless. You don't read a thing on these message boards, do you.
You just spout off with whatever comes to your head, without regard to whether or not it makes sense or whether or not you have a reason to say it...
... or whether or not it is topical.