Defending the Truth

Articles | Interviews | Politicians | Groups | Arcade | Experience | Donate
  Defending the Truth > Debate Politics > Global Politics
Wikipedia Not Credible Source

Global Politics Debate US and International politics here.

Reply
Page 3 of 5 < 12 3 45 >
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-12-2006, 03:49 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
alias's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wild Wild West
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Level up: 66%, 344 Points needed
Level up: 66% Level up: 66% Level up: 66%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
alias is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
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.
Do you always blather on and on when you try to insult me and you fall flat on your face? Looks like it. Keep going. We're all having a good laugh at my house.
Sponsored Links
Old 06-12-2006, 03:54 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senator
 
foundit66's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,844
Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Level up: 9%, 456 Points needed
Level up: 9% Level up: 9% Level up: 9%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
foundit66 is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
Do you always blather on and on when you try to insult me and you fall flat on your face? Looks like it. Keep going. We're all having a good laugh at my house.
And once again, alias has chosen to DROP ALL ARGUMENTS and go for just pretending a "win" just to get out of the debate.

If you want to argue the points, then do so.
If all you're going to do is make empty claims in order to avoid the debate, you're not worth my time.
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher
Old 06-12-2006, 04:01 PM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
alias's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wild Wild West
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Level up: 66%, 344 Points needed
Level up: 66% Level up: 66% Level up: 66%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
alias is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
And once again, alias has chosen to DROP ALL ARGUMENTS and go for just pretending a "win" just to get out of the debate.

If you want to argue the points, then do so.
If all you're going to do is make empty claims in order to avoid the debate, you're not worth my time.

That's twice now in the last few minutes you have said I am not worth your time. Obviously, I am.
Old 06-12-2006, 04:04 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senator
 
foundit66's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,844
Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Level up: 9%, 456 Points needed
Level up: 9% Level up: 9% Level up: 9%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
foundit66 is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
That's twice now in the last few minutes you have said I am not worth your time. Obviously, I am.
I EXPLICITLY stated that if you're not going to argue the issue, then you're not worth my time.

Do you disagree?
Is it worth my time to talk to you if you're not even going to argue the point?
Is it worth my time to talk to you if you're just TRYING TO AVOID my points?

More questions you'll cowardly avoid answering...


You claimed I didn't respond.
I did.

You claimed that the previous poster's last sentence helped prove your point.
And then you refuse to answer questions as to whether or not you ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD his last sentence.

Care to pick up where you dropped the ball?
Or do you know when you've been whupped, and you're just posturing before you leave this thread...
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher
Old 06-12-2006, 04:36 PM   #25 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Dylan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,810
Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Level up: 37%, 126 Points needed
Level up: 37% Level up: 37% Level up: 37%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Dylan is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
I find that wikipedia is good for quick reference, but one should never, ever use it for anything professional or academic.
Old 06-12-2006, 04:48 PM   #26 (permalink)
Banned
 
alias's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wild Wild West
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Level up: 66%, 344 Points needed
Level up: 66% Level up: 66% Level up: 66%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
alias is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan
I find that wikipedia is good for quick reference, but one should never, ever use it for anything professional or academic.
Of course, you're correct. When you have who knows how many people with different opinions and agendas who are allowed to edit definitions, how can you expect to get a correct definition. To even insinuate you can is just plain dishonest. You hear that foundit? Dishonest.
Old 06-12-2006, 05:24 PM   #27 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Dylan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,810
Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Level up: 37%, 126 Points needed
Level up: 37% Level up: 37% Level up: 37%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Dylan is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
Of course, you're correct. When you have who knows how many people with different opinions and agendas who are allowed to edit definitions, how can you expect to get a correct definition. To even insinuate you can is just plain dishonest. You hear that foundit? Dishonest.
Well, they tend to be mostly correct. It's just that their verification system is flawed. They usually catch errors within 48 hours or less, but you never know what you'll see before it gets fixed.
Old 06-12-2006, 05:27 PM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
alias's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wild Wild West
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96 Points: 26,006, Level: 96
Level up: 66%, 344 Points needed
Level up: 66% Level up: 66% Level up: 66%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
alias is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan
Well, they tend to be mostly correct. It's just that their verification system is flawed. They usually catch errors within 48 hours or less, but you never know what you'll see before it gets fixed.
Exactly. When I first began to see people use wikipedia as a source for argument, I just accepted it. So I just goggled "wikipedia false" and got all kinds of info. How many of us here knew that all kinds of people can edit it?
Old 06-12-2006, 05:37 PM   #29 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Dylan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,810
Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Level up: 37%, 126 Points needed
Level up: 37% Level up: 37% Level up: 37%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Dylan is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
Exactly. When I first began to see people use wikipedia as a source for argument, I just accepted it. So I just goggled "wikipedia false" and got all kinds of info. How many of us here knew that all kinds of people can edit it?
I did. That's what "open source" means. However, wikipedia has what my computer savvy friends would call a "benevolent dictator" who makes sure that everything is correct. There's so much stuff that it's hard to catch everything immediately though.
Old 06-12-2006, 07:58 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senator
 
foundit66's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,844
Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Level up: 9%, 456 Points needed
Level up: 9% Level up: 9% Level up: 9%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
foundit66 is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
Of course, you're correct. When you have who knows how many people with different opinions and agendas who are allowed to edit definitions, how can you expect to get a correct definition. To even insinuate you can is just plain dishonest. You hear that foundit? Dishonest.
ROFLMAO!
You love to try and throw problems that you have demonstrated back in my face, don't you.

To expect that you CANNOT get a correct definition from Wikipedia is asinine.
The study I showed, which you STILL haven't even looked at I'm betting, PROVED that it's just as accurate as the Encyclopedia.

To read that, and then claim that you can't expect to get a correct definition, is peeing into the wind...


Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
So I just goggled "wikipedia false" and got all kinds of info. How many of us here knew that all kinds of people can edit it?
I knew it as well.

I realize that it's in the nature of dishonest people (such as yourself) to expect dishonesty from others, but the rest of the world just isn't like that.
READ the study I gave.
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher
Reply
Page 3 of 5 < 12 3 45 >

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 AM.

Defending the Truth - FAQ - Contact Us - Donate - Archive - Top

 Top Political Sites
Poltical Topsites 

Recommended Sites