View Single Post
Old 03-09-2009, 09:51 PM   #27
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,257
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Quite frankly wikipedia is by definition a biased source. To think otherwise is simply cutting your own argument to shreds. It is banned from many schools because every single entry, regardless of sources, is a biased entry and not all of them are even remotely correct.
Hahaaa. Yup. Not to mention the humiliation you suffer in serious circles of higher education. It may be nice as a general idea/direction pointer...but not as any real source.

Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.
Which most people don't even care enough to try to find and just simply accept it.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Few people that take academia serious consider Wikipedia an a priori truth, god-given or otherwise.
Like for example: how for the longest time in laser history it talks about Theodore Maiman and Charles Hard Townes for "inventing" the laser. True, they did build the very first one to work, however Gordon Gould is the one who coined the term LASER based off of prior research of its microwave predecessor the MASER. Later in 1977 courts ruled in Gould's favor. This was not acknowledged at first by anyone. In fact, I still do not see it sometimes when checking academic sources.

I would never cite Wikipedia unless I were using a Creative Commons photo or graphic -nor would I recommend anyone cite Wikipedia since its a tertiary source. Primary and secondary sources are preferable in any research or academic writings.
Most prof.'s I've ever met, regarding research, say it is okay for creative commons or as a "pointer". Just not as a legit source.

There doesn't seem to be, however, any support for the OP which alleges with much hyperbole that "Wikipedia is rewriting history."
Maybe not on the premise of people that know better like us, regardless of political leanings. To those who don't know better, it could be until those naive enough to believe it at first see the light about wikipedia.

Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
What people? How many people honestly take wikipedia as pure fact?

That seems like a problem with the ignorance of the people instead of the bias of wikipedia. You aren't helping, however, by pinning this solely on democrats.

Again, it is not their ethical, moral, political, etc responsibility to be unbiased. Wikipedia is by definition a biased source and should be treated as such.
Maybe what Garfield is getting at is the disturbing level of influence upon the young and impressionable who may indefinitely remain such until learning better.

@ Garf: I'd agree at least that it would be tragic if this inherently and unreasonably biased source were to be acceptible. While I cannot really say it is rewriting history yet, I can say that if it ever became acceptable as passably legit, that it would be a major step in that direction.

Originally Posted by TriggerGod View Post
Admins are still real people. And real people are still biased.

Originally Posted by Pho3nix View Post
Well, It's not really that 'black and white'. Most of the articles I've read on Wikipedia (and trust me, I've read quite a lot) are extremely neutral.
You mean muddying the waters? OR unbiased?
I see a bit of both.

Most articles' subjects also don't really warrant polarization of extremes, generally.

I never bash Wikipedia for this reason, the "anyone can edit" policy is an overly simplified explanation of how the website actually works, you can't just edit any article to your pleasing and not have it reverted to It's original form if you don't use proper citations and sources.
Just a slight clarification/correction: THAT is a recently incorporated change to its standard operating procedures from how it used to be. While it is better than it used to be, it still has a loooooong way to go.

I remember seeing some very slanderous offensive stuff completely out of place on the article about Kasumi from was a simple matter to enter as a guest and remove it and neaten up the article back then.

Can't do that now. I bet the change made by a guest from a public computer probably is still recorded on the archive from some time back in 2004-2006.

We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,