Your source is Wiki or U-tube? "Wiki Hoax Dupes Journalists"

"Irish Student's Jarre Wiki Hoax Dupes Journalists"

"When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head," Oscar-winning French composer Maurice Jarre once said, according to several newspapers reporting his death in March.

However, the quotation was invented by an Irish student who posted it on the Wikipedia website in a hoax designed to show the dangers of relying too heavily on the Internet for information.

Shane Fitzgerald made up quotes and entered them on Wikipedia -- an encyclopedia edited by users -- immediately after Jarre's death was first reported on March 30.

www.reuters.com...

Don't let this happen to You!

The student's false information was picked up by major newspapers in England, India, America and Australia.

How many threads and posts on ATS every day are based on information sourced from other internet sites?

There is a reason that blogs cannot be used as "sources" for "Breaking News" submissions.

With the admins here looking for a way to crack down on "negativity," it would seem that a lot of flaming could be avoided if posters weren't so credulous, and used a modicum of "research" beyond what other Internet users have posted ewlsewhere.

There are many legitimate conspiracies around us, around the world, without having to rely on hearsay and fabrication as a foundation for ATS submissions.

It can save a little embarrassment, too, for those gullible posters who get called out -- if they have any self-respect to begin with.

Read carefully, use with caution, and above all, THINK!

Deny Ignorance.

jw



[edit on 7-5-2009 by jdub297]

Too right even sites like bbc are duped, with all the mexican stuff, sure pleny of comments from supposed mexicans never came from mexicans at all.

It just the way the net works, and no should take any info on the net as 100% totally accurate, becuase you just cannot.

Nice thread, especially needed as a reminder on a board that we are. ATS should always havea disclaimer with news, if true.

An excellent post, if I may say so!

I have been verbally chastised by telling people on ATS that I am sick and tired of people quoting Wiki this or Wiki that, at me in replies to my posts.

Much of the info on Wiki is inaccurate and it is astounding that people rely on the info contained therein especially when they try to quantify or add substance to their answers.

It may seem harsh or hyper-vigilant, but with with usage growing exponentially, widening scrutiny from other journalists and even the MSM, and a growing ATS "press corps," perhaps it is time for a "Hall of Shame."

If there were a forum strictly for proven hoaxers and dupes it would serve as a greater deterrent than a "warning" or loss of "points."

Just as there is a rising clamor for "outing" 'disinfo agents,' if we are to maintain or recover our collective credibility, it may be time to begin actively policing ourselves and our sources.

Every legitimate news source maintains an Ombudsman. Mods do an excellent job policing the sometimes heated trade-offs and tirades inherent in a "conspiracy" forum, but eliminating the pure fluff and fakery would likely minimze the need for intervention into ongoing active threads.

I hate censorship of every sort, but responsibility and reliability have their virtues. The "balancing act" may be difficult, but is worth the effort if we value our individual and collective reputations.
jw

reply to post by andy1033



reply to post by fritz


Wow!

You guys have been here for almost 10 years between you, so I'm sure you've seen much more of this than I have in my brief presence.

Given your tenure, I'm sure you've seen the highs and lows of research and "opinion" on ATS.

Is it overreaching to ask for more vigilance, or are we better off with what seems to be a "laissez faire" or "caveat emptor" philsophy?

(And, why do we have to use foreign phrases to express such ideas, anyway?)

jw

I've kind of gone full circle on Wiki now. Initially I thought it was a ridiculous idea if anyone could put whatever they like in an entry. After using it I mellowed a bit, as the information presented was almost always correct and it gave a decent overview. Then I made my first contribution and was a bit dismayed at how easy it was to edit content.

I would say that it's always worth looking at the discussion page for any wiki entry, and make sure that any information is properly sourced from elsewhere. Then you can make your own mind up on whether to trust that source or not.

If you have any knowledge in a particular field then you shouldn't have to use wiki anyway, you should have your own sources relevant to that field. If you are reading in a field where you have no knowledge then wiki should be seen as a first step.

Personally, I still use wiki alone to check answers if I'm setting a pub quiz, but otherwise I'll always want a link to another source.

Originally posted by jdub297
There are many legitimate conspiracies around us, around the world, without having to rely on hearsay and fabrication as a foundation for ATS submissions.

It can save a little embarrassment, too, for those gullible posters who get called out -- if they have any self-respect to begin with.

You've got a beef with You Tube and Wikipedia? Are you saying that a little leaven ferments the whole lump?

I think your bias is showing. Tell me this: What in your opinion would be a credible source?

I use Wikipedia all the time when linking at ATS and I am also one of the biggest critics of them (they slobber over professors yet hate the real researchers) so I fully disagree with a little leaven fermenting the whole lump in this case. 95% of the loaf is still edible.

And how could you have any problem with You Tube as such? That's just silly because You Tube is a global revolution. The only people who would be against it have some agenda other than truth.

FACT: Even if the next ten stories on ATS which link Wiki and YT as sources turn out to be hoaxes(?), your point above is still invalidated by the hundreds of great snippets and videos on both sites, which have already been posted, and which are not hoaxes. You are trying to project a large shadow with this one example above. Where are you coming from with this?

reply to post by smallpeeps


I think Youtube and Wikipedia are great sites and revolutionary. For what they're worth and taken for what they generally are: entertainment and info-'lite' .

But they are not research. Even Wiki wants credits and cites for authority.

Too often though, threads and posts are driven by what someone read or watched without checking sources.

You've been a member long enough to have seen it.

I can just ignore most of the obvious crap, and do without regrets. But when someone posts "Breaking News" that is nothing but a video from some hoaxing kids, they waste my time and hurt ATS overall credibility.

Did you see the "fark" thread about ATS and the incredibly gullible posts and threads? Is that the reputation we want?

I thought we were really approaching a turning point with our own 'press corps' and increasing citation from other forums and media.

Reading a topic that starts "I have Proof ..." that arises from or depends an uncredited wiki post or CGI video and posts nothing of substance adds nothing to meaningful discussions.

If I hadn't recently come across this several times lately, maybe the story wouldn't have 'touched a nerve.'

But, why go to wiki for a definition or citation when Webster's, et c. and Google can lead to more accurate and more trustworthy authority.

Again, I enjoy both Youtube and Wiki for what they are; but, they are not authoritative by any stretch of the imagination. They can be a great place to start research, but should not be the final destination.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
For what they're worth and taken for what they generally are: entertainment and info-'lite' .

Again, bias, showing. I am not even going to respond because maybe you don't see it?

You've been a member long enough to have seen it.

I can just ignore most of the obvious crap, and do without regrets. But when someone posts "Breaking News" that is nothing but a video from some hoaxing kids, they waste my time and hurt ATS overall credibility.

Did you see the "fark" thread about ATS and the incredibly gullible posts and threads? Is that the reputation we want?

Who's we? You just joined last year. Give it a year or two before you take ATS somewhere yo'd like it to be. Trying to use it as a launching point for (silly) categorizing of these other sites as "info-lite" shows that you are a supporter of the mass media. Supporting the mass media supports the money and massive power behind it.

Perhaps you need to spend more time on both sites doing your own research rather than letting the posters here chose when and through what links you visit? I think maybe that would show you how much information can be found at these two sites. Don't rely on youngsters here to guide you.

As I have said, 95% is good, edible bread. Just spit out the gravel or parts you don't like. Also, chew carefully.

I thought we were really approaching a turning point with our own 'press corps' and increasing citation from other forums and media.

Reading a topic that starts "I have Proof ..." that arises from or depends an uncredited wiki post or CGI video and posts nothing of substance adds nothing to meaningful discussions.

But, why go to wiki for a definition or citation when Webster's, et c. and Google can lead to more accurate and more trustworthy authority.

Have you understood that many young people use the Internet? If so, then please just ignore that posts you are describing. Stop being critical of people who are new, and trying touse these new tools.

As for Webster's and Google being more trustworthy, I will be happy to win that discussion, if you like. Probably you should let this thread sit for a year, then come back to it.

Again, I enjoy both Youtube and Wiki for what they are; but, they are not authoritative by any stretch of the imagination. They can be a great place to start research, but should not be the final destination.

Again, you make the same point, without much body to it. You don't seem to be able to separate wheat from chaff. This tells me you are not able to understand, or you have an agenda. My agenda is NOT anti-Wikipedia, though I have railed against them. Your agenda seems to be much more sweeping.

There is a ton of truth in both YT and Wiki which was not available before Internet, so you must also logically now denigrate the Internet?

Also you seem not to understand that "Wikis" are excellent tools for knowledge and MUCH better than the two pathetic examples (Webster and Google?) you've cited. A "Wiki" (of which there are thousands online) is actually directly human created and unlike anything humans have ever had.

You are trying to say that the sun is not warm, when clearly people are being warmed by it. Even if Wikipedia is a tool of the elites, it is still a new type of tool for them in that we finally have access to the information in it.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Trying to use [ATS] as a launching point for (silly) categorizing of these other sites as "info-lite" shows that you are a supporter of the mass media.

It shows no such thing. I've been a researcher for probably longer than you've been alive. I know where and how to find reliable sources, with or without "mass media."

Perhaps you need to spend more time on both sites doing your own research rather than letting the posters here chose when and through what links you visit?

I visit Wikipedia andWikileaks regularly. Youtube has very entertaining clips. The point of the thread is not to avoid such sites, but to be careful. Maybe you missed the original post where I said:

"There is a reason that blogs cannot be used as "sources" for "Breaking News" submissions.
...
Read carefully, use with caution, and above all, THINK!"

As for Webster's and Google being more trustworthy, I will be happy to win that discussion.

Again, maybe you just didn't read what I said, and replied to what you think I said.

I never vouched for Webster or Google, I identified them as paths to authority: "Webster's, et c. and Google can lead to more accurate and more trustworthy authority."

You don't seem to be able to separate wheat from chaff. This tells me you are not able to understand, or you have an agenda. ... Your agenda seems to be much more sweeping.

I make my living "separat[ing] wheat from chaff." My only agenda is accurate communication.

Never trust how things "seem." And nothing "tells [you]" anything about my understanding or motives.

Those are assumptions you've drawn on your own. (Projecting a little of yourself into this, maybe?)

You are reading way too much into things I never said, and missing the things I did. And assuming a lot that there is no basis for. That's not good.

There is a ton of truth in both YT and Wiki which was not available before Internet, so you must also logically now denigrate the Internet?

A truer non-sequitur there never was. One can criticze or compartmentalize internet content without discrediting the internet.

You've never heard of the messenger/message dichotomy, have you? Or do you just choose to ignore it to enable your "logic?"(faulty as it is)

Also you seem not to understand that "Wikis" are excellent tools for knowledge and MUCH better than the two pathetic examples you've cited. A "Wiki" is actually directly human created and unlike anything humans have ever had.

("Seems" to you, again? What I understand? A little more Projection?)

Okay, now it's clear you didn't read my post. ALL the cited examples are tools. That does not make any of them better than another for any particular project.

I make no endorsements anywhere in here, but advise "caution" and discretion. Clearly. Explicitly.

What's wrong with that?

As far as "humanly created," and novelty go, ALL KNOWLEDGE is created by humans, and every new thing learned is "unlike anything [you] ever had. Wikis and videos are no more novel or useful than books, music and theater were when they were "created."

You are trying to say that the sun is not warm, when clearly people are being warmed by it. Even if Wikipedia is a tool of the elites, it is still a new type of tool for them in that we finally have access to the information in it.

Nope. I say only (using your example) "be careful not to get burned." I am no luddite; I welcome any advance that assists in the spread of and access to knowledge.

jw

Did you have to write a multiple-reply post like this just to defend your point? God I hate threads like this. And all because I decided to defend You Tube and Wikipedia, two of the greatest gifts to humanity.

Since you can't see their value, there is no way to convince you that they are so valuable so all I can do is draw out a sketch of you, which I am doing. If you do the same with me, you'll find a curious young mind. What will we find in your case?

Originally posted by jdub297
It shows no such thing. I've been a researcher for probably longer than you've been alive. I know where and how to find reliable sources, with or without "mass media."

That means nothing to me. A person can spend their whole life researching and have it mean nothing at the end of their life. Why do you say this as if it is supposed to mean something? Most research props up paid asshead professors anyway. Are you tenured or just a citizen researcher at your local library?

The point of the thread is not to avoid such sites, but to be careful. Maybe you missed the original post where I said:

"There is a reason that blogs cannot be used as "sources" for "Breaking News" submissions.

That is not the vibe you are giving off. There is very little "helpfulness" in your tone. More a tone of superiority.

Okay, I'm gonna have to keep you honest here: You did not just make a friendly post here asking us to be careful. That is a baldfaced lie. What you are doing here is placing your weight against these two information portals, which actually have helped many many people more than you have ever done. So do you see? You, personally, have helped a few people find truth (perhaps?) but that would pale in comparison to the effect YT and Wikipedia have had on the human race, so how can you compete?

You are being a critic, and you are positioned here in defense of established (controlled) mass media and against emerging media forms.

I never vouched for Webster or Google, I identified them as paths to authority: "Webster's, et c. and Google can lead to more accurate and more trustworthy authority."

If you are at ATS searching for authority, that places you in a very special group.

Let me see if I understand you: People who want to post about conspiracy subjects would have better luck quoting Webster and Google? I want to help you find your greater authority, but maybe you're at the wrong site for that? Many people here find that "authority" often hides actual truth by presenting half-truths and falsehood. Let's have that discussion if you want.

I make my living "separat[ing] wheat from chaff." My only agenda is accurate communication.

I don't see your statement here as being consistent. You are saying perhaps that the chaff/wheat ratio is higher on Google than Wikipedia? Please, explain it to me.

You are reading way too much into things I never said, and missing the things I did. And assuming a lot that there is no basis for. That's not good.

Wrong, I am defending websites which are bigger and better than yu or whatever you think you know. Get it? These websites will teach us more than you, ever, will. So I am defending them and their content against a world which is dissecting them, and which world includes so many "smart people" of the past generations who don't have eyes (or hearts) to see.

There is a ton of truth in both YT and Wiki which was not available before Internet, so you must also logically now denigrate the Internet?

A truer non-sequitur there never was. One can criticze or compartmentalize internet content without discrediting the internet.

I will now explain what a non-sequitor is: It is when someone makes a completely unconnected statement. But I have not done that. I have connected your feelings about YT and Wiki to your larger attitude about the Internet, and I have done so, correctly. A non-seq would be for me to accuse you of something false or unconnected, but since YT and Wiki represent the Internet media, then what I am saying, is true. You then go on to say you aren't a luddite, and that proves you see the validity of my "non-sequitor" here. I'm just calling you out in defense of YT and Wiki.

You now claim that you are not an enemy of the Internet, yet you have not ONCE in all the words you've typed here, described a better place to find truth on the Internet. You claim to be telling youngsters "be careful" but that's not what you body of work and this thread is communicating, at least to my ears (which could be faulty I guess).

I make no endorsements anywhere in here

You are making defamatory comments, repeatedly. That you are on your heels now makes the point because you've got no better user-created content website to offer us. You are being critical of the two places where finally humans can communicate directly with one another. That tells me a lot.

You are not "just being helpful" and that is clear because your post above whines about little kids who are enjoying and linking to both sites in their quest for truth. Let me be clear: You are not allowed to blame the young, the Internet or anyone else for what value you personally fail to find on You Tube or Wikipedia.

Please understand there is nobody who needs to be advised or protected from these sites. They are user created and as such, they are a completely wholly new thing, even though you seem to unable to grasp that. They are unique, amazing, and in their infancy still.

If you could actually produce a video or maybe contribute to one of the thousands of Wiki's out there, you could stay aware and keep pace with the world.

It doesn't matter where you look for information on the internet, there will always be truth mixed in with the false, even when you look for other sources the chances are they come from the same places.

That is what makes this site so good, people wont accept face value so go and try and get to the bottom of it, it isn't just Wiki, or Youtube either, its everywhere, scouring through the information is the only real way to find out what is right and wrong information, and even then there will always be someone who disagrees, it isn't a case of cant win, you have to ask is it done that way on purpose? because if it is, everything can be debunked because of it, a safety net for the Governments of this World perhaps?

I was slow in picking up this OP. I must admit I'm quite taken aback by something that seems to be overlooked.

The Reuters source was brief, and perhaps the ARS technica piece on it ( arstechnica.com... ) was more in-depth, but also failed to see something that I think is both relevant and material for this discussion.

Here we see a report regarding someone who purposefully diminished the value of a Wikipedia entry, by entering a known false-hood. He attributes the action with an explanation that he 'wanted to see how far it would go.'

Academician commentators such as Ars Technica's John Timor ( arstechnica.com... ) seem to applaud the action, citing it as more 'proof' that journalists do not research their articles before publication.

Yet we see that Wikipedia requests all such quotes include source citation, and this perpetrator did not provide one. Also, the editorial components of the reporting agencies that 'fell for it' certainly never looked at the article and circled the unattributed quote before publication to ask for 'source?'

This failure was at many levels, but I find the 'laudatory' posture they take regarding this students 'experiment' as perhaps a very egregious and offensive practice. Frankly, I suspect that turning a benign encyclopedic entry into a HOAX should be considered with less gleeful acceptance and more as an example of how little regard this person has for the common netizen.

The concept behind user generated entries is one of cooperative oversight and some degree of 'honorable intent'. Yet this student will be applauded by those who wish to strengthen and maintain the false perception that internet contributors generally can't be trusted. Here we have a future academician (?) living down to that paradigm.

In what way does this student's actions prove any specific thing, other than he has the freedom to lie?

Reporters, don't simply 'plug in' stories and run, editors are supposed to review them, so the failure was more than just the reporter/researcher's.

Wikipedia, is not a source for anything in and of itself. Nearly everything has some 'root source' that should be found somewhere in the entry, for the most part. If they can't be bothered to look for footnotes and attributive citations what kind of research skills to they have? What kind of journalist doesn't pursue this practice - and isn't that part of why they go to journalism training in the universities?

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Since you can't see their value, there is no way to convince you that they are so valuable

I value YouTube, Wikipedia, and Wilikleaks for what they are.

Okay, I'm gonna have to keep you honest here: You did not just make a friendly post here asking us to be careful. That is a baldfaced lie.

"A baldfaced lie?"

Here's exactly what I said:

There is a reason that blogs cannot be used as "sources" for "Breaking News" submissions.

With the admins here looking for a way to crack down on "negativity," it would seem that a lot of flaming could be avoided if posters weren't so credulous, and used a modicum of "research" beyond what other Internet users have posted elsewhere.

Read carefully, use with caution, and above all, THINK!

Is there a legitimate reason you did not correctly quote me, or did you intentionally try to deceive people?

That is a baldfaced lie. ... you are positioned here in defense of established (controlled) mass media and against emerging media forms.

"A baldfaced lie?"

Anyone who reads the OP and believes that is delusional.

Show me anything in the OP "in defense of mass media." Your suspicions ("controlled" mass media) indicate paranoia, fear and doubt.

Let me see if I understand you: People who want to post about conspiracy subjects would have better luck quoting Webster and Google?

That is "a bald faced lie."

I said no such thing and you know it; so, No, you do not "understand" me. I said they can "lead to" authoritative sources.

You can not find in the OP anywhere I advocated "quoting" either of those resources.

Many people here find that "authority" often hides actual truth by presenting half-truths and falsehood. Let's have that discussion if you want.

You confuse "authority" with "authoritative sources." There are too many differences to even try to help you in some other discussion. So, no thanks.

You are saying perhaps that the chaff/wheat ratio is higher on Google than Wikipedia? Please, explain it to me.

I said no such thing. Both are pathways that can lead to valuable sources for reference. Explained.

I am defending websites which are bigger and better than yu or whatever you think you know. Get it?

Wow. I hope they are grateful.

[Google and Youtube] will teach us more than you, ever, will. So I am defending them and their content against a world which is dissecting them, and which world includes so many "smart people" of the past generations who don't have eyes (or hearts) to see.

You've undertaken an unnecessary mission. Most critical thinkers of every generation do not rely on their "hearts to see" credible information.


Now, you need to speak to your logic professor. Here's your non-sequitur:

There is a ton of truth in both YT and Wiki which was not available before Internet, so you must also logically now denigrate the Internet.

1. Criticism of a component of a medium (here, WP or YT) is not criticism OR rejection of the entire medium (i.e., the Internet)!

2. Your conclusion that I "denigrate the internet" because I caution against reliance on YT or WP as authoritative sources does not follow!

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

en.wikipedia.org...(logic)
www.merriam-webster.com...

I will now explain what a non-sequitor is ... .

You have no idea.

I'm just calling you out in defense of YT and Wiki.

Admirable, bit misguided.

You claim to be telling youngsters "be careful" but that's not what you body of work and this thread is communicating, at least to my ears (which could be faulty I guess).

I said nothing to any "youngster." I offered an observation based on the experience of a seasoned reporter, a student, and the gullible "mass media."

I know nothing about your ears, but the connection between your eyes and brain "could be faulty I guess."

You are making defamatory comments, repeatedly.

Show me one. You can't.

You've got no better user-created content website to offer us.

The thread is not about offering alternatives. It is to caution (through reference to a real-world example) against considering a "user-created content website" as your best or only source for information.

You are being critical of the two places where finally humans can communicate directly with one another. That tells me a lot.

As opposed to face-to-face communication? The telephone? Public forums? Internet forums? Letters?

"Finally?"

That tells me a lot!

Your post above whines about little kids who are enjoying and linking to both sites in their quest for truth.

What? Where? Who's "whining" on this thread? Kid.

And, if "little kids" are contibuting to YT or WP, that is even more reason NOT to trust them as sources for information!

Let me be clear: You are not allowed to blame the young, the Internet or anyone else for what value you personally fail to find on You Tube or Wikipedia.

I am "not allowed?" By whom?

Nowhere in my thread have I "blame[d] the young, the Internet or anyone else" for anything.

Are you okay, kid?

Please understand there is nobody who needs to be advised or protected from these sites. They are unique, amazing, and in their infancy still.

Speak for youself.

Their "infancy" is precisely why I posted the news story about people being duped by false information on Wikipedia.

If you could actually produce a video or maybe contribute to one of the thousands of Wiki's out there, you could stay aware and keep pace with the world.

You have no idea how many videos I've produced, played for an audience, or broadcast/published; or how many Wiki posts I've contributed to, clarified, corrected and profited from.

More, I dare guess, than you ever will.

jw

Originally posted by azzllin

That is what makes this site so good, people wont accept face value so go and try and get to the bottom of it ...
scouring through the information is the only real way to find out what is right and wrong information.

Conspiracy theories and skepticism are really 2 sides of the same coin, aren't they?

Both are looking for the truth behind the accepted belief (or suspicion).

Excellent summary of ATS.

jw

[edit on 8-5-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by Maxmars

Here we see a report regarding someone who purposefully diminished the value of a Wikipedia entry, by entering a known false-hood.
...
Reporters, don't simply 'plug in' stories and run, editors are supposed to review them, so the failure was more than just the reporter/researcher's.

Wikipedia, is not a source for anything in and of itself. Nearly everything has some 'root source' that should be found somewhere in the entry, for the most part. If they can't be bothered to look for footnotes and attributive citations what kind of research skills to they have? What kind of journalist doesn't pursue this practice - and isn't that part of why they go to journalism training in the universities?

Beautiful! I do not condone what the student did. A more legitimate test would not have devalued a resource others responsibly rely on.

The fact that trained and educated (I would hope) reporters and editors did no fact-checking emphasizes why "mass media' and "mainstream media" should not be taken at face value.

Popularity does not equal legitimacy.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Nowhere in my thread have I "blame[d] the young, the Internet or anyone else" for anything.

Yes you did, you mockingly joked about ATS users who post links to You Tube and waste your time. Also the title of your thread here mocks those who link to these sites. I know, I know, you claim to just be "concerned for future journalists" but how much journalism is worth a damn anyway? Really, YT and Wikipedia are more truthful than the output of 90% of "journalists" out there.

Ah whatever. Once you said you weren't willing to show us an alternative then I lost all interest in this thread. If you were wanting to be helpful, you'd do that.

You are right to make fun of me for defending sites that don't care about my defense of them. But posting a thread like this isn't helping anybody. Like I said, I'm critical of them also but my critique has body. Yours is hollow.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

... you mockingly joked about ATS users who post links to You Tube and waste your time.

I've not joked anywhere in this thread. What I said was:

when someone posts "Breaking News" that is nothing but a video from some hoaxing kids, they waste my time and hurt ATS overall credibility.

That is a reference to an actual post last week. The link was a YT video made by kids. It was quickly proven a hoax, but not by me. I didn't even post.

... you weren't willing to show us an alternative ... .

There is not "an alternative." You are clicks away from access to information on anything. The alternatives are unlimited and for you to evaluate according to your own needs and purposes.

This thread is only an example of what can happen to "experts" who do not use judgment and take third-hand information at face value.

jw

reply to post by Hellmutt

I've used WP and Tinwiki myself. But you've got to be careful.

Even text books, law books and medical references, once considered the 'final word' on a subject, become outdated and useful only as historic references.

You can never be too careful if you value your credibility.

jw

jw