• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wow! Wiki really is shut down!

Re: Wikipedia is currently Blacked Out

liblady said:
are you serious wake?
Click to expand...

Yes I am. I was looking up Jimmy Hoffa and the page then, after a few seconds, blacked out and showed said warning. So yes, I'm serious.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
Oh OK, I didn't see the earlier thread.
 
Karl said:
Perhaps, but that is an incorrect reason (even though there could be errors). Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is not a primary source. It contains no original research. Depending on what one is writing about, original research should be cited; not a distillation of that research published by a third party (e.g., an encyclopedia).

Any facts found on Wikipedia should be easily traceable to their source (via article footnotes), which is what should be read, understood, and cited in scholarly work.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but my professors never really had a problem with me citing secondary or even tertiary sources. I'm a history and social sciences major, so the way we write and do research differs from how, for example, a science major might do a research paper. Of course primary sources are stronger, but secondary and tertiary sources are useful as well.
 
Re: Research papers/sources

My professors always required that we use the databases the school provides access to. The sources within the database are pretty board-ranging and the databases themselves are a cluster-eff of confusion. I've actually used Wikipedia (specifically the citation links/info at the end of articles) to help me pinpoint key-words, journal names, or other information that might help me find what I need. It is a useful site, depending on how you approach it.
 
Paschendale said:
And yet many of the more technology/internet literate professors do not take this stance. Like the congressmen who don't know how the internet actually works, a lot of older professors don't understand how Wikipedia works. They don't realize that Wiki articles are cited like any other professional work, or that malicious changes are removed within a few hours. Every single article has its sources in primary information, or else puts a big banner on top if such citation is missing. A wiki is more accurate than a printed encyclopedia, able to be revised and have errors fixed, and is far faster and easier to navigate than printed books. As a source of knowledge, it is superior. Get with the 21st century guys.
Click to expand...

21st Century - the Century of lazy and stupid. Hey, someone should make a movie about.... wait a minute!


2743427_det.jpg
 
StillBallin75 said:
This is all true, but my professors never really had a problem with me citing secondary or even tertiary sources. I'm a history and social sciences major, so the way we write and do research differs from how, for example, a science major might do a research paper. Of course primary sources are stronger, but secondary and tertiary sources are useful as well.
Click to expand...

I was groomed to respect the traditional encyclopedia and other established tertiary sources, but to mostly run to the secondary sources it lists and evaluate those, and then covet the primary sources used within the secondary sources. With subjects in the humanities, social sciences, or history (my area as well), Wikipedia can do the subjects little justice. You just have to question the entire methodology. I have seen too many third rate magazines or newspapers used to summarize a historical or political work instead of the works themselves. I have also seen very little insight as to which sources they would bother picking or why they made that choice. You give your authority to low rate researchers: the every man with the internet at his or her fingertips rather than the person trained in the craft for decades. A starting point is all I will grant Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Re: Research papers/sources

My professors always required that we use the databases the school provides access to. The sources within the database are pretty board-ranging and the databases themselves are a cluster-eff of confusion. I've actually used Wikipedia (specifically the citation links/info at the end of articles) to help me pinpoint key-words, journal names, or other information that might help me find what I need. It is a useful site, depending on how you approach it.
Click to expand...

I agree depending on the circumstances and setting. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is to accuracy and knowledge what processed food is to nourishment.
 
Connery said:
I agree depending on the circumstances and setting. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is to accuracy and knowledge what processed food is to nourishment.
Click to expand...

Cheeto's is a major food group.... isn't it? :think:
 
Shut down? Yay! Now, if only their entire "database" would just crash we might actually start making some headway in the quest for real knowledge and effective research. :shrug:
 
tessaesque said:
Re: Research papers/sources

My professors always required that we use the databases the school provides access to. The sources within the database are pretty board-ranging and the databases themselves are a cluster-eff of confusion. I've actually used Wikipedia (specifically the citation links/info at the end of articles) to help me pinpoint key-words, journal names, or other information that might help me find what I need. It is a useful site, depending on how you approach it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. No, it's not a legitimate scholarly source, which its co-creator stated plainly in a Time article a few years ago. But it's a great launchpad when you know nothing about a concept or idea because you can glean the names of major players and milestones. Further, many Wiki articles do have bibliographies, and these too provide shortcuts. The responsibility will always lie with the researcher through determine the value of sources. I appreciate the quick summaries, and often I read a Wiki entry just for the "big picture."
 
Ockham said:
Cheeto's is a major food group.... isn't it? :think:
Click to expand...

For some it is ...

28901.jpg


...and they pay the price.
cheetos+fun.jpg


You take you knowledge and your nourishment in direct proportion to the benefit derived from both.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia i can live without. Wookieepedia i can not. Oh how i love thee.
 
I dunno if anyone has posted an update, but this keeps it as 'breaking news'.

Congressional support for controversial online piracy legislation eroded dramatically on Wednesday in the face of an unprecedented online protest supported by tech titans such as Google, Wikipedia and Facebook.

Several key senators withdrew their support from the Senate's Protect IP Act (PIPA), including Tea Party favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), an elected member of his party's leadership.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who leads the Senate GOP's campaign team, said the legislation should be put on hold, while Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a sponsor and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, retreated from the bill. Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) also withdrew his sponsorship.

Thousands of websites went dark on Wednesday to protest the two Internet piracy bills, the House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate's PIPA. At least two California Democrats, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren, joined the protests by blacking out their websites.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leader of Senate conservatives, also came out against the bills, calling them "misguided bills that will cause more harm than good."

"When protecting intellectual property rights, we must not undermine free speech, threaten economic growth, or impose burdensome regulations," DeMint tweeted.

Opposition is also building in the House. Two of the original Republican co-sponsors of SOPA, Reps. Ben Quayle (Ariz.) and Lee Terry (Neb.), withdrew their support Tuesday before the protests began, and scores of other lawmakers took to Twitter Wednesday to affirm their opposition...

Hundreds of millions of Internet users, most of whom might have been unaware of the bills until Wednesday, are likely to have noticed the protests...

Wikipedia — the world's sixth most popular site, according to the Web firm Alexa — went a step further, shutting down its English-language site entirely. Visitors to Wikipedia are greeted with a minimalistic, dark page with the headline: "Imagine a world without free knowledge."
Click to expand...
Five key senators abandon online piracy bills amid Web protests - The Hill's Hillicon Valley


We win, they can eat a crap.
 
You know, guys and gals, we are getting excited about senators removing support for these bills amid the population showing extreme concern for them. We shouldn't be happy they are doing this, we should demand they do it. They are supposed to represent US, remember?
 
Under SOPA, you could get 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song. One year more than the doctor who killed him.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
You know, guys and gals, we are getting excited about senators removing support for these bills amid the population showing extreme concern for them. We shouldn't be happy they are doing this, we should demand they do it. They are supposed to represent US, remember?
Click to expand...

This is a valid arguement. It seems to me congress never listens to what we have tos ay because they too busy supporting their parties
 
tessaesque said:
Not sure how up-to-date this is, but I found a site that shows how each representative leans on SOPA/PIPA:

Who in Congress Supports SOPA and PIPA/PROTECT-IP? | SOPA Opera | ProPublica
Click to expand...

Your link seems to be rather up to date. Since I saw it yesterday Rubio has moved from being for it, to against it.. Also yesterday It was (if memory serves) 80 for and maybe 20 against - today it is 62 for and 102 against.

Although one of my senators has switched sides (Rubio), the other is still listed as being for it. My congresswoman is still an unknown commodity, but I have called her and voiced my opposition to SOPA.
 
Ockham said:
I'm invalidating your argument which focuses on a study - appeal to authority, in which I say you can find a study to say anything you want. Arguing with a study as the main point has become irrelevant for the reasons I've cited.
Click to expand...

The fallacy is yours. The proper course of action would be to find the study and critically appraise it yourself. Guilt by association is hardly logical argument. Assuming encyclopedia britannica is substantially more reliable is also the true appeal to authority here.

People here seem to forget that any original research they read will also be predicated upon other research. There'll be a long list of references of any academic paper you'll have to read and research if you want to fully accept what the paper is trying to prove or argue. I doubt many of the traditionalist academics here are any more thorough than an average wiki user in that regard.
 
Ben K. said:
The fallacy is yours. The proper course of action would be to find the study and critically appraise it yourself. Guilt by association is hardly logical argument. Assuming encyclopedia britannica is substantially more reliable is also the true appeal to authority here.

People here seem to forget that any original research they read will also be predicated upon other research. There'll be a long list of references of any academic paper you'll have to read and research if you want to fully accept what the paper is trying to prove or argue. I doubt many of the traditionalist academics here are any more thorough than an average wiki user in that regard.
Click to expand...

Define "traditionalist academic" please. I mean, you surely aren't suggesting that an academic, a scholar who publishes, is only as thorough as the average Wiki user. :roll:
 
nota bene said:
Define "traditionalist academic" please. I mean, you surely aren't suggesting that an academic, a scholar who publishes, is only as thorough as the average Wiki user. :roll:
Click to expand...

People who disregard Wikipedia purely out of elitist orthodoxy.

It's relative to the subject you're researching. If you only have a passing interest in a scientific subject, and you perform a search on pubmed to inform yourself, I'd say it's unlikely you're going to perform rigorous analysis on the references the paper you choose to read uses. You in fact, will rely on user review to assume that what the paper claims to be predicated on is accurate. Similar to the casual Wiki user. Will anyone with a real interest not investigate the references on Wiki, or pubmed for that matter, further just as a qualified scientist using pubmed would? Neither type of user can claim authority on the matter, you simply can't trace all the references on a research paper anymore than you can on a Wiki article.
 
Ben K. said:
The fallacy is yours.
Click to expand...
No, yours is the appeal to authority. See when you make an accusation you need to say what it is and why. Just making a counter accusation without anything is sort of ... banal.[/quote]
 
Does anyone have an idea on how the government plans to take control of the Internet? (Libs, you should be loving this prospect, by-the-way)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom