ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Wikipedia is part of the complete dumbing-down of America and the world. I struggle all the time to get my daughter to look things up in books and cross-check references using other sources. She told me last week that her teacher accepted references from Wikipedia for research work. When I talked to the teacher a couple of days later about it, she said that she doubted my claim that Wikipedia was not accurate on many entries.
I couldn't agree more Wistah. To think that said teacher is basically, by her actions, embedding Wiki as a fact source to these kids is upsetting. Encyclpedia Britanica & Wikipedia as equals Sad. Then people wonder why I say there is a public moron factor in this country of 30-40%.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Wikipedia articles are supposed to cite everything they say. Why wouldn't the teacher just ask for the underlying reference?
Want to give the teacher an example? Make a bogus edit to a Wikipedia article in her subject-area and then show her ("America was founded in 1901 by Ronald McDonald"). That can happen any time to any article.
So, let's say you're trying to learn more about the Pope's Nazi past or Kennedy's drunk driving crime, what would you rely on? What would rely on if you just wanted a general overview of Iraq? How about if you wanted to get an overview of the history of abortion or Creationism? What sources do those of you who dislike Wikipedia trust for general information?
So, let's say you're trying to learn more about the Pope's Nazi past or Kennedy's drunk driving crime, what would you rely on? What would rely on if you just wanted a general overview of Iraq? How about if you wanted to get an overview of the history of abortion or Creationism? What sources do those of you who dislike Wikipedia trust for general information?
If I wanted reliable information on the Pope's past, I would look in a traditional encyclopedia, or a biography. Of course you can't trust that anything will be bias-free, so it helps to have mutliple sources to see where the historical disagreements are.
As far as Iraq, encyclopedias in general are bad for current events, they work best in retrospect, when the dust has settled. I would look at current-events sources like news sites and news magazines, keeping in mind that unbiased information is even harder to come by when you're dealing with current events.
Wikipedia would be a great companion source for any of that stuff, but I would never rely on it as an accurate source, only as an outline to help me search for sources.
So, let's say you're trying to learn more about the Pope's Nazi past or Kennedy's drunk driving crime, what would you rely on? What would rely on if you just wanted a general overview of Iraq? How about if you wanted to get an overview of the history of abortion or Creationism? What sources do those of you who dislike Wikipedia trust for general information?
There are a wide variety of ways (including the internet but also without the internet) an intelligent person can research an article or a subject (whereas an ignorant person simply defaults to Wikipedia or whatever Holocaust-denying websites happen to be at hand). You apparently do not know the proper procedures and standards for research, and it doesn't fall upon me to teach them to you.
So let's just say that if I wanted reliable, unbiased information on any of the above subjects, I wouldn't go to patsfans.com or alt.politics. Nor would I go to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not reliable, and that's coming from someone who uses it a lot. While it's very useful to get a quick overview of something, and the references it provides are great for digging deeper into the topic, I've ran into (and edited out) plenty of outright misinformation in articles. I wouldn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, it's more of a collaborative website on everything under the sun.
The conservapedia idea is just stupid. It's like giving up on the search for scientific truth if it conflicts with your political beliefs.
I agree Pujo. I use Wiki to get a general idea, or some points to reference. I'll take names, dates, or historical incidents from Wiki and then do my own research. It's cool for a quick brief on a specific person or topic, but it is not to be taken as certifiable fact.
As for the Conservo-diarea site, it is dumb. Sadly, it's creation is exemplary of everything news and info in this country today. The slants, angles, and bias of so many sources of information have pushed providers, be it news, or info centers, to be built for specific audiences. Really sad. What happens is you get channels/sources reporting half truths, or manipulated info, in order to push their agenda, or appease their patrons. Consequently, you get, as Wistah put it, a dumbing of America, as people end up believing that Lincoln made that quote, or that Charlton Heston actually gave that speach in Colorado.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
I don't know, Pujo, maybe in certain subjects it's weaker than in others. But, when it comes to history and literature, I think it's overall quite accurate. Then, as one studied showed, it's apparently quite accurate in the sciences as well. At least in a comparison with Brittanica, it does respectably. If you don't mind, give a couple of actual examples of the kinds of errors you've found. I'd be honestly quite curious.
Sure it's accurate.
Wiki: Kennedy was assasinated.
Well he was wasn't he?
Wiki: Kennedy was shot
Duh, didn't everyone see the footage?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
There are a wide variety of ways (including the internet but also without the internet) an intelligent person can research an article or a subject (whereas an ignorant person simply defaults to Wikipedia or whatever Holocaust-denying websites happen to be at hand). You apparently do not know the proper procedures and standards for research, and it doesn't fall upon me to teach them to you.
Does anyone who actually post links and contributes intelligently to this forum care to cite examples of sources they commonly use and consider reliable? I'd like a response someone I respect, or at least someone who is not obsessed with me.
See, this is why I ask for references. There a very important little fact you and PatsFaninVA left out... he said "...comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Evidently, their accuracy was rated about the same."
But, upon checking the article, that's not the entire truth. The report doesn't say Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica... it says Wikipedia is as accurate in science as Britannica. As I have gladly admitted, Wikipedia is a great source for completely non-controversial information. So Wikipedia is great for non controversial stuff like the atomic weight of helium or Newton's 3 Laws or Franklin Pierce's birthday. But the instant you get into something even remotely controversial, like global warming or the Theory of Evolution or the righteousness of nuking Japan or the War in Iraq then Wikipedia is no better a reference tool than any thread from this forum where everyone is spouting off their opinions.
So basically, if I might put it in a language my 4th grade brain can understand, Wiki is accurate if you want to find out that 2+2=4, but if you want to find out who sent Joe Wilson to Niger, then.......
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Want to give the teacher an example? Make a bogus edit to a Wikipedia article in her subject-area and then show her ("America was founded in 1901 by Ronald McDonald"). That can happen any time to any article.
You mean, Ronald McDonald didn't found America in 1901?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Re: A conservative rival for Wikipedia?
Sad. Then people wonder why I say there is a public moron factor in this country of 30-40%.
Linear Mode
