• 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!

Ockham said:
It certainly is enough to get started but it's not a serious source of information. It should be used more as a directory to find the actual source rather than the source itself.

Amazingly enough, there are other sites out there which can and should be used instead of Wiki:

Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia
World Book
Click to expand...

A study was conducted by Nature in 2005 that showed Wiki's accuracy is comparable to that of Britannica. Actually, a plethora of studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wiki that there is even a Wiki page on it....lol.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.

UPDATE: see details of how the data were collected for this article in the supplementary information.

UPDATE 2 (28 March 2006). The results reported in this news story and their interpretation have been disputed by Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nature responded to these objections .

One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource.
Click to expand...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html



Nonetheless, I agree with you. I view Wiki as a great platform to use, but not necessarily an authority of knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
That's why I've been vandalizing the Wikipedia pages for Elbonia, Latveria, and Narnia every chance I get to include lurid descriptions of their WMD programs and human rights abuses.
Click to expand...

The Narnian child soldier abuses are well documented.
 
Antiderivative said:
A study was conducted by Nature in 2005 that showed Wiki's accuracy is comparable to that of Britannica. Actually, a plethora of studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wiki that there is even a Wiki page on it....lol.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I will ALWAYS question the reliability of ANY source of information that does not REQUIRE a burden of proof before printing something. With the fact that almost anyone can add, remove, or modify things on Wikipedia it is NOT a reliable source of information for most things, so far as I'm concerned.
 
Tigger said:
Sorry, but I will ALWAYS question the reliability of ANY source of information that does not REQUIRE a burden of proof before printing something. With the fact that almost anyone can add, remove, or modify things on Wikipedia it is NOT a reliable source of information for most things, so far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Good for you since I never advised otherwise.
 
Time to bust out Encarta '95.

Seriously though, Google has replaced their doodle with a blackout and Reddit is also blacked out for the day. If we could just get Facebook on board Congress would have to shut down their phone lines.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
That's why I've been vandalizing the Wikipedia pages for Elbonia, Latveria, and Narnia every chance I get to include lurid descriptions of their WMD programs and human rights abuses.
Click to expand...

Aslan has nukes! He must be stopped!
 
Tigger said:
Sorry, but I will ALWAYS question the reliability of ANY source of information that does not REQUIRE a burden of proof before printing something. With the fact that almost anyone can add, remove, or modify things on Wikipedia it is NOT a reliable source of information for most things, so far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is great launching point to a number of credible sources. Just go to the footnotes on the bottom and click the link to the information you are looking to confirm. This is a great way to find legitimate sources for any topic.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Time to bust out Encarta '95.

Seriously though, Google has replaced their doodle with a blackout and Reddit is also blacked out for the day. If we could just get Facebook on board Congress would have to shut down their phone lines.
Click to expand...

No! Not my facebook!

*huddles in corner*
 
Enola said:
Google jumped on the bandwagon. Check it out:

https://www.google.com/
Click to expand...

I just logged in today, and noticed this.

If this law passes, places like debatepolitics might be next. God forbid any of us little people exercise our first Amendment rights. Next, they'll go after the Second Amendment. Guarantee it.
 
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...

Did you see all the old guy establishment DC idiots that are supporting this piece of **** legislation?

Hatch, McCain, Reid, Udall, Sessions, Schumer, Wasserman, OMG--Rubio?, Alexander, Blumenthal, Coburn, Cornyn, Feinstein, Durbin, King, Inhofe, Leiberman...

I just dont think these people realize the negative impacts of the legislation they drafted. Its a terrible piece of legislation and the unintended consequences would be censorship of the internet like nothing we have seen. What nimrods.

In particular I cant believe Rubio, Kyl, King, Cornyn, Coburn and Grassley are supporting this abomination. The rinos, yeah I can believe it.
 
Tigger said:
Sorry, but I will ALWAYS question the reliability of ANY source of information that does not REQUIRE a burden of proof before printing something. With the fact that almost anyone can add, remove, or modify things on Wikipedia it is NOT a reliable source of information for most things, so far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Run a test then. Go change any Wikipedia article to something incorrect. Then see how long it takes for it to be corrected. When I was in high school, we were writing a report on a book and someone in our class changed what was written for the book. It was fixed within the hour. It definitely should not be used as the only source of information but it is a very good stepping stone as well as great way to find answers quickly.
 
Tigger said:
GOOD. Wikipedia is NOT a legitimate information source for most important things so far as I'm concerned. Now maybe someone will actually have to go to a LIBRARY and pick up a BOOK or go somewhere that has actually been researched and fact-checked in order to get their information for the next 24 hours.
Click to expand...

My minor is in art history and my masters in photography. I happen to find wikipedias artcles on photography to be very accurate.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Did you see all the old guy establishment DC idiots that are supporting this piece of **** legislation?

Hatch, McCain, Reid, Udall, Sessions, Schumer, Wasserman, OMG--Rubio?, Alexander, Blumenthal, Coburn, Cornyn, Feinstein, Durbin, King, Inhofe, Leiberman...

I just dont think these people realize the negative impacts of the legislation they drafted. Its a terrible piece of legislation and the unintended consequences would be censorship of the internet like nothing we have seen. What nimrods.

In particular I cant believe Rubio, Kyl, King, Cornyn, Coburn and Grassley are supporting this abomination. The rinos, yeah I can believe it.
Click to expand...

I giggled at Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi being next to one another in the "oppose" category when I loaded the page. I wonder if pigs grew wings for a second.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Time to bust out Encarta '95.

Seriously though, Google has replaced their doodle with a blackout and Reddit is also blacked out for the day. If we could just get Facebook on board Congress would have to shut down their phone lines.
Click to expand...

Hey stop this talk. I need facebook.
 
Antiderivative said:
A study was conducted by Nature in 2005 that showed Wiki's accuracy is comparable to that of Britannica. Actually, a plethora of studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wiki that there is even a Wiki page on it....lol.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
There are studies which claim eating dirt has health benefits too. Fact is, you can find a study to pretty much claim anything these days.

Antiderivative said:
Nonetheless, I agree with you. I view Wiki as a great platform to use, but not necessarily an authority of knowledge.
Click to expand...
It's great as a first step only. The problem is people use it as authoritative sourcing - which is not so good.
 
Ockham said:
There are studies which claim eating dirt has health benefits too. Fact is, you can find a study to pretty much claim anything these days.

It's great as a first step only. The problem is people use it as authoritative sourcing - which is not so good.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, eating dirt can indeed have nutritional benefits...unless you're eating dirt in a figurative sense.
 
StillBallin75 said:
In all fairness, eating dirt can indeed have nutritional benefits...unless you're eating dirt in a figurative sense.
Click to expand...
Im not too sure why. Maybe its the sleep depravation. But that last figurative part made me laugh out loud. I think maybe my mind is too far back to have expected it. Cause it seems like it should be all that funny. But it was.
 
StillBallin75 said:
In all fairness, eating dirt can indeed have nutritional benefits...unless you're eating dirt in a figurative sense.
Click to expand...

There are people who eat feces too, doesn't mean I'd want to eat dirt or feces no matter what the benefits were... but that's just me. :shock:
 
evanescence said:
I just logged in today, and noticed this.

If this law passes, places like debatepolitics might be next. God forbid any of us little people exercise our first Amendment rights. Next, they'll go after the Second Amendment. Guarantee it.
Click to expand...
Meh. Mods got the site on lock. ;) No danger of DP being SOPA'd.
 
StillBallin75 said:
In all fairness, eating dirt can indeed have nutritional benefits...unless you're eating dirt in a figurative sense.
Click to expand...

Haiti, 2008:

With food prices rising, Haiti's poorest can't afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies.

Charlene, 16 with a month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country's central plateau.

The mud has long been prized by pregnant women and children here as an antacid and source of calcium. But in places such as Cité Soleil, the oceanside slum where Charlene shares a two-room house with her baby, five siblings, and two unemployed parents, cookies made of dirt, salt, and vegetable shortening have become a regular meal.

"When my mother does not cook anything, I have to eat them three times a day," Charlene said. Her baby, named Woodson, lay still across her lap, looking even thinner than the slim 6 pounds, 3 ounces (2.7 kilograms, 85 grams) he weighed at birth.

Though she likes their buttery, salty taste, Charlene said the cookies also give her stomach pains. "When I nurse, the baby sometimes seems colicky too," she said.
Click to expand...

Poor Haitians Resort to Eating Dirt
 
Ockham said:
There are people who eat feces too, doesn't mean I'd want to eat dirt or feces no matter what the benefits were... but that's just me. :shock:
Click to expand...
What if you got kicked and was paralyzed in a horse stall? Its been 2 and a half days. That horse turd is within tongues reach.
 
Ockham said:
There are studies which claim eating dirt has health benefits too. Fact is, you can find a study to pretty much claim anything these days.
Click to expand...

Interesting study, but I don't understand the relevancy of how eating a mud pie might provide some nutritional value to the numerous studies conducted on the reliability of wiki. It is comparing apples to oranges.

It's great as a first step only. The problem is people use it as authoritative sourcing - which is not so good.
Click to expand...

Again, you won't find disagreement with me on this. Wiki is a great source, but it requires discretion and follow through.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
What if you got kicked and was paralyzed in a horse stall? Its been 2 and a half days. That horse turd is within tongues reach.
Click to expand...

LOL how did you come up with this scenario!

Anyways, to everyone else, sorry for de-railing the thread. I largely agree with Ockham. As any college professor will tell you, Wikipedia is NOT to be cited as an authoritative source in a paper. It is, however, very useful as an initial point of research and background information.
 
StillBallin75 said:
LOL how did you come up with this scenario!

Anyways, to everyone else, sorry for de-railing the thread. I largely agree with Ockham. As any college professor will tell you, Wikipedia is NOT to be cited as an authoritative source in a paper. It is, however, very useful as an initial point of research and background information.
Click to expand...
Was trying to think of an instance in which paralization or being trapped is possible + poop being around. I want to see him say "Id eat poop". That is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom