Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by foundit66

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...



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.

Originally Posted by alias

I conducted a study also. My study says I cannot rely on wikipedia as a credible source when you have untold numbers of people accessing and editing continually.

Originally Posted by alias

Looks like others agree. You lost another one to Gyco.

Originally Posted by foundit66

You know, it's moments like this that the phrase "Liar, liar, pants on fire" seems the most suitable response...

Once again, you resort to dishonesty and JUST your personal opinion, without even trying to figure out what other people are saying on the subject.



Oh good grief. You CANNOT COMPREHEND what the others have said on the subject. You hear only what you want to hear.

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."

AMFLiberal: "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."

If you actually STOPPED and tried THINKING about what the three of us are ACTUALLY saying, you'ld see we're essentially saying the same thing.

And on that note, I'm curious if you can accurately relay what my opinion of Wikipedia actually is...
Let me guess. ANOTHER question you're going to cower from...

Originally Posted by alias

Thanks for proving my point.

Originally Posted by alias

I conducted a study also. My study says I cannot rely on wikipedia as a credible source when you have untold numbers of people accessing and editing continually. Looks like others agree. You lost another one to Gyco.

Originally Posted by Dylan

Good grief...

Alias, you do not have the means or the education to conduct a study.

Originally Posted by alias

I just did. You all agree with me wikipedia is not a credible source.

Originally Posted by alias

I just did. You all agree with me wikipedia is not a credible source.

Originally Posted by Dylan

That isn't a study. A study requires a sample group of at least a couple hundred people, it requires statistics, it requires a hypothesis and an experiment and actually examining and observing....

No wonder you think scientists are hacks. You have no understanding of how a study works.

Originally Posted by alias

I don't think scientists are hacks. I never said that. I think those who believe theories are proof are stupid whether they are scientists or not. We are all agreed that anyone can access wikipedia and edit it and that makes it a noncredible source.