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!
It'll be interesting to see the Wiki-apologists defend this little tidbit
Excerpt from ABCNews.com:
"This latest scandal involves a prominent editor who forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate ... (he) described himself on his user profile as 'a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States.' In reality, Ryan Jordan was a 24-year-old community college dropout from Kentucky who relied on sources like 'Catholicism for Dummies' when correcting articles."
And if you can't trust a 24 year old community college dropout to be a reliable reference, then who can you trust...?
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
I'm not sure if "humiliation" is the right word to describe this "scandal".
Being an "open-ended" source, there is, of course, always the possibility of misrepresentation and inaccurate information.
It is obvious that you cannot use Wikipedia as the primary source. You have to verify the information from a secondary source.
BTW, my high school son, who has been accepted to Stanford, is a Wikipedia editor and a contributor.
.
Star Wars geek can't hear you... he's covered his ears from actually having to read any rebuttal to his pittiful, angry wacko righty nonsense... lol... in fact, i think he's left with bantering only with his allies...
Last edited by PressCoverage; 03-06-2007 at 06:20 PM..
It seems like people don't know what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. All encyclopedias, by definition, are secondary sources. If you want to learn about the civil war from primary sources, you have to find civil war-era documents. If you look it up in something that's dedicated to writing about the civil war, like any encyclopedia, you're consulting a secondary source.
What people mean to say is that they wouldn't use Wikipedia as their only source, and I think that's clear enough to 95% of the people who would ever bother to look something up in the first place.
It seems like people don't know what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. All encyclopedias, by definition, are secondary sources. If you want to learn about the civil war from primary sources, you have to find civil war-era documents. If you look it up in something that's dedicated to writing about the civil war, like any encyclopedia, you're consulting a secondary source.
That was very well explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pujo
What people mean to say is that they wouldn't use Wikipedia as their only source, and I think that's clear enough to 95% of the people who would ever bother to look something up in the first place.
Most people yes, but I think 95% is a tad high. Wistah said his kids teacher was telling his/her students that Wiki was gospel. (sorry for the religious overtones )
__________________
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
...Most people yes, but I think 95% is a tad high. Wistah said his kids teacher was telling his/her students that Wiki was gospel. (sorry for the religious overtones )
Something like that. I said she told the kids it was a good source for information. At second thought, I don't necessarily disagree with her since she was talking to 4th graders, but my daughter knows that there are better sources.
I'd put Wikipedia as a quaternary source, tertiary at best, not secondary.
is anything funnier than watching Con men posters bang cymbals over "Wikipedia Humliation" and Gore's kilowatt usage, all while COMPLETELY avoiding the Libby verdict and the US Attorneys firing stories like the plague?
distract, distract, distract... i love it... remember when you were 3 and you thought if you closed your eyes really hard and everything went dark that you actually disappeared, yourself?...
how utterly satisfying ...
Last edited by PressCoverage; 03-06-2007 at 08:26 PM..
is anything funnier than watching Con men posters bang cymbals over "Wikipedia Humliation" and Gore's kilowatt usage, all while COMPLETELY avoiding the Libby verdict and the US Attorneys firing stories like the plague?
distract, distract, distract... i love it... remember when you were 3 and you thought if you closed your eyes really hard and everything went dark that you actually disappeared, yourself?...
how utterly satisfying ...
Strategy #3 from the Rove play book, when dealing with any facts from the left throw out anything and see if it sticks, if it does you have done your job by distracting from the real issues. Who cares about Wikpedia, it is what it is minimally a tertiary source.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
More Wikipedia Humiliation
)
Linear Mode
