OT: Revis wants 20M per year...

[emoney_33]

Why shoulsd I when I posted an article where they had experts on specific subjects review the pages relating to them (they even had an author review a page about himself) and they found inaccuracies and false information.

"Why should I"... nice.

You have a tiny sample of maybe a handful of articles 5 years ago. If you want to argue wikipedia was less accurate 5 years ago, then that's a different argument.

Last count Wikipedia had 2.5 billion pages and are a non-profit organization. Even for profit organizations with far more resources for fact checking who post far less information get things wrong. The fact that users can edit makes the margins of error even greater. They don't have fact checkers to verify every fact posted on the site.

Spoken like someone who simply doesn't understand the basic principles of wikipedia. Wikipedia being non-profit has nothing to do with anything. The wiki model is more of a democratic fountain of knowledge. For instance take something general like

Central processing unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those aren't children, hoaxers, and idiots writing these things.

First, I just found the first few articles I could find. I can post more.

You are LOOKING for articles against wikipedia, and you will find them. I can go look for conspiracy theory articles and find a ton of them too, will they convince you to wear a tinfoil hat?

Also, you obvious didn't really look at articles. Because one of the article had a number of experts on different subjects review pages relating to that subject (even an author or two looking at their own pages) and many of them found anything from very minor to more significant inacuracies.

I'm not new to wikipedia, nor open sharing of knowledge and information in general. I've read the old articles as well as newer articles and more in depth studies. I've also read tons of wiki pages in my field without finding inaccuracies.

Btw, they've found similar inaccuracies in Brittanica. No one ever said any encyclopedia was perfect.

Here is what the London Times says on their review process (at least four years ago):

Comedy of errors hits the world of Wikipedia - Times Online

The London Times, 4 years ago, are experts on billions of pages of wikipedia in 2010... nice. Funny I keep seeing these tiny samples of false information from 5 years ago but still no in-depth large sample research or analysis. And absolutely nothing current.

So it isn't like the people who review the pages are neccessarily experts on the subjects they are producing, historians, or even getting paid. For what it is, it is incredibly accurate, but that doesn't mean there aren't tons of inaccuracies on it.

Actually they ARE experts on the subjects. They aren't getting paid, they are doing it for the RIGHT reasons, not because they have to. Tons of people believe in the open information and freedom of knowledge model that wikipedia provides. Go to any technical wiki page and you are going to tell me that some non-expert wrote that?

So, for example, the contributors of the wiki on a black hole don't really know what they are talking about? They aren't experts?

Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(You are mistaken)

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council has blamed Wikipedia's innacuracies in part for the falling student grades in Scottland.

Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies' - Scotsman.com News

Now this is simply a joke, blaming wiki for falling grades without a shred of evidence.

John Seigenthaler, NBC News reporter and an assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, wrote an article in USA Today attacking Wikipedia that information on him on the site was inaccurate including alledging he was involved in both the assassinations of JFK and Robert Kennedy. Those allegations stayed on Wikipedia for 132 days before it was removed.

USATODAY.com - A false Wikipedia 'biography'

132 days is a long time, but this is 5 years ago, and no one ever said that every single page and article about every single person is perfect and always was. Over time the inaccuracies are flushed out though, and I'll bet you his wiki page is plenty accurate today.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rob, seriously I already linked you (and again above) to all the information you need. If you can't be bothered to read the entire body of evidence and facts then fine. There are comparable number of errors in all major for-profit expert-only encyclopedia's like Britanica as well.

Your argument is basically based on the reputation of wiki 5 years ago which came mainly from a tiny sample of inaccuracies like the biography one. Your argument simply relies on the fear that "anyone can edit it". Yeah well guess what, anyone can steal your car, assault you, break into your house, break your windows, etc... "Anyone can" is not a valid argument or proof of anything at all.

For important research, I wouldn't rely solely on information from any one source, internet, library, book, or expert. But that's not a knock on the expert, book, library or internet in general. There is no such thing as one perfect place to go for information.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

Wikipedia vs Encyclopaedia: A question of trust? | News | TechRadar UK

Wikipedia and vandalised pages

Wikipedia has received a lot of flack in the last year or so for articles which have been vandalised, sometimes quite subtly, to give misleading, if not plain wrong, information.

"Some articles are vandalised a lot," writes Nicholson Baker in the Guardian. "On January 11 this year, the entire fascinating entry on the aardvark was replaced with 'one ugly animal'; in February the aardvark was briefly described as a 'medium-sized inflatable banana'".

Admittedly, this has only happened to a small percentage of pages and mainly to those detailing autobiographies of living people, but it has tarnished Wikipedia's reputation. If you bear in mind the kind of pages that are most likely to be corrupted, they will be ones where the ‘editors’ can gain personal or commercial advantage.

Few people will want to alter the Wikipedia details of the Trojan wars, the demise of the dodo or the history of Wall Street. Be aware that erroneous edits do occur, and check anything that seems outlandish with a second source. But the vast majority of Wikipedia is filled with valuable and accurate information.

There’s little doubt Wikipedia is a lot more extensive than any DVD-based resource too. The space available to writers is far larger than for the articles in Britannica or World Book and many Wikipedia texts go into more detail.

Most major articles have good external references and lots of photos or illustrations. Some have links to the Wikimedia Commons project, which offers many more supporting items. There are 60 pictures of Dartmoor, for example.

There are inevitably holes in the Wikipedia knowledge set, where authors haven’t been found for specific subjects. Unlike the other encyclopaedias, articles aren’t commissioned (though requests for entries are put in article ‘stubs’, to show where topics need coverage).

Read more: Wikipedia vs Encyclopaedia: A question of trust? | News | TechRadar UK

So yes Rob, don't trust biographies of living people (especially politicians), but Wikipedia is overall a very reliable and accurate source for information.

I still challenge you to find an error in something in your field or that you know to be untrue. There's billions of pages, anyone can edit them and none of wiki can be trusted so it shouldn't be too hard or time consuming, right?

 

[VJCPatriot]

LMAO at 20M. Revis is worth 10M per year tops. Even Asomugha isn't worth the 15M that he's being paid.
I hope the Jets do pay him 20M per. That will hamstring their ability to sign other players. And the cap WILL be coming back. It's just a matter of when.

 

[Rob0729]

"Why should I"... nice.

You have a tiny sample of maybe a handful of articles 5 years ago. If you want to argue wikipedia was less accurate 5 years ago, then that's a different argument.



Spoken like someone who simply doesn't understand the basic principles of wikipedia. Wikipedia being non-profit has nothing to do with anything. The wiki model is more of a democratic fountain of knowledge. For instance take something general like

Central processing unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those aren't children, hoaxers, and idiots writing these things.



You are LOOKING for articles against wikipedia, and you will find them. I can go look for conspiracy theory articles and find a ton of them too, will they convince you to wear a tinfoil hat?



I'm not new to wikipedia, nor open sharing of knowledge and information in general. I've read the old articles as well as newer articles and more in depth studies. I've also read tons of wiki pages in my field without finding inaccuracies.

Btw, they've found similar inaccuracies in Brittanica. No one ever said any encyclopedia was perfect.



The London Times, 4 years ago, are experts on billions of pages of wikipedia in 2010... nice. Funny I keep seeing these tiny samples of false information from 5 years ago but still no in-depth large sample research or analysis. And absolutely nothing current.



Actually they ARE experts on the subjects. They aren't getting paid, they are doing it for the RIGHT reasons, not because they have to. Tons of people believe in the open information and freedom of knowledge model that wikipedia provides. Go to any technical wiki page and you are going to tell me that some non-expert wrote that?

So, for example, the contributors of the wiki on a black hole don't really know what they are talking about? They aren't experts?

Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(You are mistaken)



Now this is simply a joke, blaming wiki for falling grades without a shred of evidence.



132 days is a long time, but this is 5 years ago, and no one ever said that every single page and article about every single person is perfect and always was. Over time the inaccuracies are flushed out though, and I'll bet you his wiki page is plenty accurate today.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rob, seriously I already linked you (and again above) to all the information you need. If you can't be bothered to read the entire body of evidence and facts then fine. There are comparable number of errors in all major for-profit expert-only encyclopedia's like Britanica as well.

Your argument is basically based on the reputation of wiki 5 years ago which came mainly from a tiny sample of inaccuracies like the biography one. Your argument simply relies on the fear that "anyone can edit it". Yeah well guess what, anyone can steal your car, assault you, break into your house, break your windows, etc... "Anyone can" is not a valid argument or proof of anything at all.

For important research, I wouldn't rely solely on information from any one source, internet, library, book, or expert. But that's not a knock on the expert, book, library or internet in general. There is no such thing as one perfect place to go for information.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

Wikipedia vs Encyclopaedia: A question of trust? | News | TechRadar UK




So yes Rob, don't trust biographies of living people (especially politicians), but Wikipedia is overall a very reliable and accurate source for information.

I still challenge you to find an error in something in your field or that you know to be untrue. There's billions of pages, anyone can edit them and none of wiki can be trusted so it shouldn't be too hard or time consuming, right?

I'm tired of this argument. You are never going to convince me and I guess I will never convince you. It has nothing to do with the original thread and I am done hyjacking it. We can go back and forth on this forever. I said my peace and so did you. I will let you have the last word.

 

[Ring 6]

Can you be specific about falling 'flat on their faces'?

I think the Jets have the potential to do very well but it all depends on Sanchez's improvement. I feel real confident about Mark Sanchez. For a guy who only started 2 years at QB (1 at USC and 1 at the NFL) I think he has a bright future and a lot of upside.

That is all.

\When the best thing you can say about a guy is that you have an excuse why he is bad, thats pretty ominous.

 

[emoney_33]

I'm tired of this argument. You are never going to convince me and I guess I will never convince you. It has nothing to do with the original thread and I am done hyjacking it. We can go back and forth on this forever. I said my peace and so did you. I will let you have the last word.

And I will take the last word, thanks.

It's not about convincing you of anything, it's about providing facts to disprove your outdated and foolish misconceptions of one of the greatest models for knowledge available. You can be cynical all you want, but you couldn't even accept a simple challenge to find even a single current inaccurate piece of information.

/hijacking

I hope the Jets pay Revis more than he wants, no DB will ever be worth $20M/yr (relative to the value of a dollar in the NFL today).

 

[Ring 6]

I think the Jets are going to fall flat on their faces this year. Your team doesn't scare me in the least. However, I just get tired of people trying to discount what Revis did this past year as unimpressive or average. The reason this board does it is precisely because he is a Jet. Could you imagine the size of the threads on here if he were a Patriot? General agreement by some would have him as the greatest CB to ever play the game.

By the way, this thread is only five pages if you see 40 posts per page.

Since much of your debate has been with me, we need to be clear that I have not come close to doing what I bolded in your comment.
I have said many time he had a great season. My argument is that you cannot elevate it by overstating the level of competition.
A great season against normal competition is a great season.
Every shred says that the quality of the passing games and particularly the productivity of the #1 WRs of the Jets 16 opponents is not significantly different than any other teams 16 opponents, i.e. the competition was average.
That is far from discounting the year he had or calling it anything less than what it was. I'm just arguing against creating a false dynamic to make it MORE than it was.

 

[Rob0729]

And I will take the last word, thanks.

It's not about convincing you of anything, it's about providing facts to disprove your outdated and foolish misconceptions of one of the greatest models for knowledge available. You can be cynical all you want, but you couldn't even accept a simple challenge to find even a single current inaccurate piece of information.

/hijacking

I hope the Jets pay Revis more than he wants, no DB will ever be worth $20M/yr (relative to the value of a dollar in the NFL today).

Well, if you want to prove me wrong. Go ahead and take the challenge yourself. For me to prove myself right I would have to find a page that I know alot about and come up with a factual error that is plausible that would be passed over by the moderator (because that is the type of information I am questioning and not someone doing something like someone posting Brady's page that he is really an alien). I don't have the time or energy to do that. Even if I did I couldn't tell you about it at least until it changed or you could go in and change it.

Call me cynical if you want, but I guess I have problem believing that a site with billions of pages and trillions of words that allow users to edit and is monitored by volunteers is going to be 100% factual. I don't believe in pixies or unicorns either. If it is, they should have Wikipedia run the federal government because they have hundreds of thousands of paid employees and they can't seem to get even some of the simpliest things right.

Ok, I took one more thing, but I figured I would respond to why I didn't take the challege.

 

[emoney_33]

Well, if you want to prove me wrong. Go ahead and take the challenge yourself.

Your "task" is finding ONE piece of false information, what is mine? Proving billions upon billions of pieces of information? Think about that. I've already said I've read tons of information on wiki in my field of "expertise" and have not found errors. I've linked you to lots of information and studies as well.

For me to prove myself right I would have to find a page that I know alot about and come up with a factual error that is plausible that would be passed over by the moderator (because that is the type of information I am questioning and not someone doing something like someone posting Brady's page that he is really an alien).

It shouldn't be hard since you say Wikipedia is NOT reliable and very inaccurate. And btw, what moderator? It's 'moderated" by the masses, a collection of people who CARE enough about open information and knowledge all across the world. Sort of similar to the same way open source software works.

I guess you missed out on all the studies I linked you to including the one where experts reviewed wiki pages and found less problems with the information than non-experts...

I don't have the time or energy to do that. Even if I did I couldn't tell you about it at least until it changed or you could go in and change it.

There is history of who changes it, what they changed and when. It's not lost forever, the entire history of every page is available for anyone to see. So you are now saying that Wikipedia is actually pretty damn accurate because it would take you a lot of time and energy to find a SINGLE piece of false information.

Call me cynical if you want, but I guess I have problem believing that a site with billions of pages and trillions of words that allow users to edit and is monitored by volunteers is going to be 100% factual.

That's pretty much the definition of being cynical lol. And no one claimed "100%" factual, that doesn't exist anywhere. The wiki model works, and has been proven, researched, studied and available for anyone to attempt to prove otherwise. Being cynical just because you don't trust humans is not a fault of wikipedia, but a fault of your judgement of human beings. I think you watch too much "news".

I don't believe in pixies or unicorns either.

Yeah wikipedia is likened to pixies and unicorns , where's your tinfoil hat?

If it is, they should have Wikipedia run the federal government because they have hundreds of thousands of paid employees and they can't seem to get even some of the simpliest things right.

How can a collection of information RUN a government? That makes no sense.

Ok, I took one more thing, but I figured I would respond to why I didn't take the challege.

I know why you won't accept the challenge, it's too difficult.

 

[Rob0729]

Your "task" is finding ONE piece of false information, what is mine? Proving billions upon billions of pieces of information? Think about that. I've already said I've read tons of information on wiki in my field of "expertise" and have not found errors. I've linked you to lots of information and studies as well.



It shouldn't be hard since you say Wikipedia is NOT reliable and very inaccurate. And btw, what moderator? It's 'moderated" by the masses, a collection of people who CARE enough about open information and knowledge all across the world. Sort of similar to the same way open source software works.

I guess you missed out on all the studies I linked you to including the one where experts reviewed wiki pages and found less problems with the information than non-experts...



There is history of who changes it, what they changed and when. It's not lost forever, the entire history of every page is available for anyone to see. So you are now saying that Wikipedia is actually pretty damn accurate because it would take you a lot of time and energy to find a SINGLE piece of false information.



That's pretty much the definition of being cynical lol. And no one claimed "100%" factual, that doesn't exist anywhere. The wiki model works, and has been proven, researched, studied and available for anyone to attempt to prove otherwise. Being cynical just because you don't trust humans is not a fault of wikipedia, but a fault of your judgement of human beings. I think you watch too much "news".



Yeah wikipedia is likened to pixies and unicorns , where's your tinfoil hat?



How can a collection of information RUN a government? That makes no sense.



I know why you won't accept the challenge, it's too difficult.

I didn't respond to have you give me a point by point rebuttal. I'm done. We will have to agree to disagree. There are information supporting your claim and there is evidence supporting my claim.

This is a thread about Revis. The last two or three pages of posts have been dominated with the debate of Wikipedia. I think we have successfully highjacked the thread. Time to give it back.

 

[emoney_33]

I didn't respond to have you give me a point by point rebuttal. I'm done. We will have to agree to disagree. There are information supporting your claim and there is evidence supporting my claim.

Fine, let's be done with this. But you are 100% wrong. There is NOT evidence supporting your claim, there are a few blogs 5 years ago questioning wikipedia. YOU made the FALSE claim that wikipedia is inaccurate and not reliable. There are boatloads of evidence disproving this, but you refuse to acknowledge anything except for your cynical view of "anyone can edit it and therefore it's riddled with bad people editting it". The fact of the matter is it is just as accurate as all other major encyclopedias.

This is a thread about Revis. The last two or three pages of posts have been dominated with the debate of Wikipedia. I think we have successfully highjacked the thread. Time to give it back.

Yeah a lot threads on this place are hijacked and derailed. And aren't we all sick of praising a Jets player already anyway .

 

[Ring 6]

Fine, let's be done with this. But you are 100% wrong. There is NOT evidence supporting your claim, there are a few blogs 5 years ago questioning wikipedia. YOU made the FALSE claim that wikipedia is inaccurate and not reliable. There are boatloads of evidence disproving this, but you refuse to acknowledge anything except for your cynical view of "anyone can edit it and therefore it's riddled with bad people editting it". The fact of the matter is it is just as accurate as all other major encyclopedias.



Yeah a lot threads on this place are hijacked and derailed. And aren't we all sick of praising a Jets player already anyway .

I know nothing about Wikipedia but I have a question.

My understanding of Wikipedia is:
It is written by anyone who chooses to write, and they are not paid to do so.
It is free does not guarantee accuracy and has no true accountablity to being incorrect, where a published commercial encyclopedia is written by professionals who are paid to do so and has the accountablity of profitibility which relies on accuracy. There is also the accountability of paid fact checkers.

Therefore my conclusion is that I can trust a commercial encyclopedia, but while there really is no reason to fear a conspiracy of people running around placing misinformation on Wikipedia, there is more risk of inaccuracy because there is no system to ensure the writer is knowledgable and no real effective fact checking process.
I wold assume Wikipedia is usually accurate but there are probably many instances of errors or unqualified opinion.

Anyone care to educate me?

 

[Rob0729]

Fine, let's be done with this. But you are 100% wrong. There is NOT evidence supporting your claim, there are a few blogs 5 years ago questioning wikipedia. YOU made the FALSE claim that wikipedia is inaccurate and not reliable. There are boatloads of evidence disproving this, but you refuse to acknowledge anything except for your cynical view of "anyone can edit it and therefore it's riddled with bad people editting it". The fact of the matter is it is just as accurate as all other major encyclopedias.



Yeah a lot threads on this place are hijacked and derailed. And aren't we all sick of praising a Jets player already anyway .

Are you satisfied yet? You really refuse to let things die do you. Here's your ball, take it and go home. Jeez!

I am tired of arguing with you. I am just tired of this dead horse beating.

 

[Rob0729]

I know nothing about Wikipedia but I have a question.

My understanding of Wikipedia is:
It is written by anyone who chooses to write, and they are not paid to do so.
It is free does not guarantee accuracy and has no true accountablity to being incorrect, where a published commercial encyclopedia is written by professionals who are paid to do so and has the accountablity of profitibility which relies on accuracy. There is also the accountability of paid fact checkers.

Therefore my conclusion is that I can trust a commercial encyclopedia, but while there really is no reason to fear a conspiracy of people running around placing misinformation on Wikipedia, there is more risk of inaccuracy because there is no system to ensure the writer is knowledgable and no real effective fact checking process.
I wold assume Wikipedia is usually accurate but there are probably many instances of errors or unqualified opinion.

Anyone care to educate me?

Well, just because a commerical entity pays for fact checking doesn't mean everything is right. As emoney did point out, there are plenty of errors in the Encyclopedia of Britanica. That is why I would never use either source as a be all or end all if I was writing a report or paper or giving a speech.

Personally, I think it is dangerous (and I use dangerous in relative speaking) to rely solely on a mass compilier of facts like Wikipedia or an encyclopedia. There is only so much fact checking that can be done.

From the study that emoney stated:

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

So both commercial and free sources like this has a fair number of mistakes. With nearly 3 or more mistakes a article how do you trust either as the be all and end all on any topic. Both Wikipedia and Britanica both have their share of inaccuracies.

Sorry, I didn't want to jump in on this again, but I just wanted to answer one of your questions. Not planning on sparking more of a debate.

 

[Deus Irae]

So both commercial and free sources has a fair number of mistakes. With nearly 3 or more mistakes a page how do you trust either.

Both are really best used as first stops, where relevant articles/items can be found. They are gateways more than destinations.

 

[emoney_33]

I know nothing about Wikipedia but I have a question.

My understanding of Wikipedia is:
It is written by anyone who chooses to write, and they are not paid to do so.
It is free does not guarantee accuracy and has no true accountablity to being incorrect, where a published commercial encyclopedia is written by professionals who are paid to do so and has the accountablity of profitibility which relies on accuracy. There is also the accountability of paid fact checkers.

In a general vague sense yes. A commercial encyclopedia's contributors are a small number of hand selected paid professionals. Wikipedia's contributors are indeed comprised of MANY professionals along with a small number of uninformed and/or malicious people. You can apply some game theory principles and think about WHY a person would modify a wikipedia page to start understanding why the model is actually very good.

Therefore my conclusion is that I can trust a commercial encyclopedia, but while there really is no reason to fear a conspiracy of people running around placing misinformation on Wikipedia, there is more risk of inaccuracy because there is no system to ensure the writer is knowledgable and no real effective fact checking process.
I wold assume Wikipedia is usually accurate but there are probably many instances of errors or unqualified opinion.

Anyone care to educate me?

Well what you are saying is not entirely accurate. There is a system, just not a conventionally structured corporate system that you may be able to relate to in today's world. The system relies on the general well-intentions of people who will see it as beneficial to take time to edit/create/write a wikipedia page. The fact checking process is the thousands upon thousands of professionals who CARE about open accurate information. There's not any one professional looking over a handful of wiki pages every hour, but the vast amount of people doing it at various points in time combines to create a very effective around-the-clock maintaining of accurate facts.

There have been studies done that show Wikipedia to be just as accurate (with the same amount of errors) as big commercial encyclopedias. I would also expect the accuracy to follow the amount of interest and expertise on a certain subject in the world as well as the time the subject has had to grow. For example a page on the principles of physics would likely be extremely accurate, while a page on recently theorized principles may need some maturation time before the masses can organize into place with the wiki model.

They have also added easy to identify structure of comments/requests on a page for example when a section of a page has too much opinion, or other issues that may need to be addressed. For example see Revis' wiki
Darrelle Revis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you really want to know more details on how the wikipedia system works, Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand the hesitancy to believe in such a system that allows anyone with internet access equal "power" to edit, especially when we are always bombarded with daily news of all the wrong things people do. However, it's all there just the same for anyone to prove it's inaccuracies yet people cannot do that. You can find errors in Wikipedia, just the same as you can find errors in every single commercial encyclopedia. If you need to do important research, one source is NEVER enough, no matter what that source is.

Wikipedia is free for anyone and everyone to view all the time, and if you are really untrustworthy of it simply cross-check the facts, see for yourself how the information holds up. If you want to go to crazy lengths, insert a mistruth into an article and see how rapidly it is fixed. It's not like we are arguing about a model that hasn't been implemented yet. Wikipedia has been around for some time now, and all the information is easy for us to see. (The history of every page is also kept and easily viewable so you know who editted it, when and in what way).

Wikipedia's biggest problem is not in the actual accuracy but the perception of its accuracy because its hard for people to trust the model when they think about it.


PS: Rob, don't get so upset. Do more research or don't, whatever I was just making sure that people get the facts not 5 year old opinions based on a cynical view of people in general.

 

[emoney_33]

Personally, I think it is dangerous (and I use dangerous in relative speaking) to rely solely on a mass compilier of facts like Wikipedia or an encyclopedia. There is only so much fact checking that can be done.

Absolutely, you can't put all your eggs in any one basket. Even experts in a field will disagree with each other. I have high confidence in things I read in encyclopedias and wikipedia, but that's not to say I'd put my life on it. If you absolutely NEED to know for sure, you should always have at minimum 3-5 sources.

So both commercial and free sources like this has a fair number of mistakes. With nearly 3 or more mistakes a article how do you trust either as the be all and end all on any topic. Both Wikipedia and Britanica both have their share of inaccuracies.

Note that study is also 5 years old, but yes I'm not trying to argue that any one place is the be-all end-all. That would be irresponsible of me to believe that even the most trustworthy of sources can't be wrong.

 

[Kontradiction]

This thread sure has veered pretty far off topic.

Can you be specific about falling 'flat on their faces'?

I think the Jets have the potential to do very well but it all depends on Sanchez's improvement. I feel real confident about Mark Sanchez. For a guy who only started 2 years at QB (1 at USC and 1 at the NFL) I think he has a bright future and a lot of upside.

That is all.

I think the Jets will end up somewhere between 7-9 and 8-8. At BEST they'll be 9-7. I also believe that they'll start off 2-4 with losses to Baltimore (Sanchez playing without both Edwards and Holmes), the Pats, Miami, and Minnesota (I expect Favre to return) and wins against Buffahole and Denver. The Denver game is really the only game that can go either way, though.

That's an odd question, they are 2 different things, google is a search engine. The average result based on a google search is fairly accurate when searching for facts, and wikipedia is usually one of the top 3 links returned.

Both are sources of information. One brings it up in encyclopedia form while the other brings it up in search form. However, both are used as ways to gain information about a very wide variety of topics.

Well considering Wikipedia is an unique entity all to itself it is a loaded question. I'll answer it when you name me another NFL QB who is married to a Victoria Secrets model who is better than Brady.

As for Google,Google does not provide any of their own content. Google is a search engine. That is like asking if you think a Chevy Nova is a more accurate passer than Tom Brady. Google and Wikipedia are nothing alike in any way shape or form.

Well, your examples are pretty poor. However, it was a loaded question. You're right. Let me rephrase: what website would you say is more reliable on the topic we're discussing right now?

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Isn't it bizarre that a thread regarding the Jets has the most activity on this board? I created a monster with this post.

 

[Ruby2]

This thread sure has veered pretty far off topic.



I think the Jets will end up somewhere between 7-9 and 8-8. At BEST they'll be 9-7. I also believe that they'll start off 2-4 with losses to Baltimore (Sanchez playing without both Edwards and Holmes), the Pats, Miami, and Minnesota (I expect Favre to return) and wins against Buffahole and Denver. The Denver game is really the only game that can go either way, though.



Both are sources of information. One brings it up in encyclopedia form while the other brings it up in search form. However, both are used as ways to gain information about a very wide variety of topics.



Well, your examples are pretty poor. However, it was a loaded question. You're right. Let me rephrase: what website would you say is more reliable on the topic we're discussing right now?

How is a team that went 9-7 last year and made significant improvements projected to finish at best with the same record?

And how can only one of the first 6 games go either way? That must be some serious crystal ball.

 

[Kontradiction]

How is a team that went 9-7 last year and made significant improvements projected to finish at best with the same record?

Besides Santonio Holmes, I don't see an improvement. Tomlinson is just about done, Cromartie is more or less the same as Lito Shepard and hates to tackle, Jason Taylor has always been a liability against the run and his pass rush skills have significantly dimished (on top of that, he is better as a 4-3 DE than a 3-4 OLB), and the team lost their best run blocking OG and replaced him with a rookie which means that run game should suffer. Let's just say that, outside of Holmes, I'm not at all impressed with their offseason.