DeletedUser
for all you people who are fighting over wikipedia being a good sorce or not. talk about it here
DeletedUser8950
Wikipedia is a good source and only idiots or people who have a bad impression otherwise think so.
It'd take you dozens of pages to find one with any major inaccuracy.
I get so sick of this debate time and time again. I've shown so many wikipedia pages which are actually more accurate then the sources they use in many cases.
It'd take you dozens of pages to find one with any major inaccuracy.
I get so sick of this debate time and time again. I've shown so many wikipedia pages which are actually more accurate then the sources they use in many cases.
DeletedUser
wikipedia, is not a good source, anybody can add to it, i could go on right now, and write a false report, i forget the name, but I'm aware of a report that was entered and it caused a problem, the file was on there for two years and then removed once it was finnally proven false, wikipedia would be my last choice for a report or anything else.
DeletedUser8950
Thealex you know nothing about what you're saying.
Add a false report now, I can guarantee you five seconds later it will be removed.
Find me one article that has false information please.
This "false article" was probably one paragraph in a long profile.
I used wikipedia all through my school days and always had better research then those who didn't.
DeletedUser
Yes i do know what i'm talking about, and i can tell you get lucky alot cause wikipedia ruined my reports and i'd rather not waste my time. I would rather see you take the time to look through news reports proveing that wikipedia held such an article that actually led to an arrest and the man served time Darknoon, honestly think before you post.
DeletedUser8950
Hahah, classic,
You haven't shown me any proof, just made a couple of claims and told me to
Wikipedia is valid for the majority of it's articles. A few have a few facts which are off, but you get that everywhere you research.
Oh and alex have yah ever thought it might not be the research ruining your reports?
You haven't shown me any proof, just made a couple of claims and told me to
Wikipedia is valid for the majority of it's articles. A few have a few facts which are off, but you get that everywhere you research.
Oh and alex have yah ever thought it might not be the research ruining your reports?
DeletedUser
Darknoon is correct. Wikipedia is an excellent starter base for research, although it should not be the sole source. And alex, your failure to provide evidence of this so-called incident falls squarely in the rumor-mill. It serves no other purpose than to discredit by assertion, sans proof.
Associated Press reports are another excellent tool for obtaining news, and far more reliable than all these "spinsters" posing as journalists.
I have a list, somewhere, that I used to provide to my journalism interns, of reliable and quotable sources. I'll try to hunt it down, but what I wanted to mention was that nobody should "quote" Wikipedia. Instead, they should chase the associated citation(s), the source, and quote those instead.
Associated Press reports are another excellent tool for obtaining news, and far more reliable than all these "spinsters" posing as journalists.
I have a list, somewhere, that I used to provide to my journalism interns, of reliable and quotable sources. I'll try to hunt it down, but what I wanted to mention was that nobody should "quote" Wikipedia. Instead, they should chase the associated citation(s), the source, and quote those instead.
DeletedUser8950
Yup. Wikipedia even lists the sources of where it's information is from so that they can prove it.
Counter argue that please alex. Or at least post one link.
Or just admit you're wrong.
DeletedUser
I use wiki when I want to know what happened in 1337 or when I want to know who this or that person was.
But when I need to find out how Dishevelled inhibits the complex of APC/axin/GSK-3β and thereby the degradation of β-catenin in the Wnt/frizzled-pathway, I prefer other sources.
By the way, this year we got a new economy minister. He has 10 names. Some guy altered his wiki article and added an eleventh name. Wiki noticed and changed it back...but too late. Some newspapers and magazines published articles about him with his "11" names, yellow press and serious media alike. Wiki took those as reliable sources in return, reconsidered and changed the article again to those 11 names. A couple of days later the guy decided to expose his joke/test. If he hadn't done so, I doubt anyone would have noticed the mistake as yet.
But when I need to find out how Dishevelled inhibits the complex of APC/axin/GSK-3β and thereby the degradation of β-catenin in the Wnt/frizzled-pathway, I prefer other sources.
By the way, this year we got a new economy minister. He has 10 names. Some guy altered his wiki article and added an eleventh name. Wiki noticed and changed it back...but too late. Some newspapers and magazines published articles about him with his "11" names, yellow press and serious media alike. Wiki took those as reliable sources in return, reconsidered and changed the article again to those 11 names. A couple of days later the guy decided to expose his joke/test. If he hadn't done so, I doubt anyone would have noticed the mistake as yet.
DeletedUser
Oh, and alex, I don't know the reason for why your report didn't go well, but I can surmise, based on your lack of research skills and your horrible grammar, the fault lays with you. Take responsibility for providing a lazy, more than likely plagiarized, report.
DeletedUser8950
Lol!
Wikipedia isn't the best source, true. But if you don't have a huge amount of time and want something simple it's a great tool.
DeletedUser
Aye Jack, that's the mistake some wannabe journalists make. Wikipedia is not a quotable source, it is a repository. These people who wrote those articles, which messed the whole scene up about the 11 names (and this is such a trivial issue, but it deserves noting nonetheless), failed to research beyond Wikipedia. That's lazy, irresponsible, and unprofessional. Which, unfortunately, is mainstream media nowadays. *rolls eyes*
Note: mainstream media is not journalism, it's the equivalent of televised gossip. A blog on television/radio.
Note: mainstream media is not journalism, it's the equivalent of televised gossip. A blog on television/radio.
DeletedUser8950
Lol, thealex hasn't even replied yet. This is after telling me to think before I post.
He's very amusing. I hope he doesn't leave.
He's very amusing. I hope he doesn't leave.
DeletedUser
I belive you should stay on topic?
As I said simply take some time to look and you will find alot of false reports.
DeletedUser8950
I can't find many major ones, besides small ones like the 11name one(which I find amusing lol)
And you still haven't sited any sources for your arguements, something wikipedia does.
And you still haven't sited any sources for your arguements, something wikipedia does.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser8950
Thanks gizmo
Grats to Denisero for making it
Grats to Denisero for making itDeletedUser
The thing in this case is though, that there are no available reliable sources, the only source would have been his birth certificate or some documents concerning his royalty (he has some title). And as I said it wasn't only yellow press, that failed, but also serious media.
DeletedUser
Thanks gizmo
i'm a bit busy right now I can't find you a source as of now, and as I said wikipedia is not a reliable source,
Last edited by a moderator: