VOTE... ATS Policy of NO Wikipedia Sources permited on ATS ( yes or no )

reply to post by Advantage


Exactly

You said it much more succinctly.

Kind Regards,

Eld

Yes to Wiki No to peeps who want censorship if you don't want to use it don't,but please do not tell me what i can and can't use,everyone bitches and moans about to many laws and regulations in the real world(rightly so),but some people want more rules and regs here SAY NO TO SOURCE SNOBBERY i say

With the caveat that you should be ready to defend your source, I don't see why not.

Where do the restrictions stop?
Will quoting the bible will still be OK, or the Koran?

how about we just let people who agree with us post
then we won't need any references at all

I guess after the third BC, and finding out Al CIADUH is also fighting Gadaffi
we can't use .gov as a reliable source.
except maybe for the inflation figures


why don't we just limit the conversation to vowels only

Yes wiki sources.. it can be a good reference.. if there is anything in question.. do more research.

Count me very firmly in the pro-Wikipedia camp. Sorry if this has been said before (haven't read the whole thread, just the OP), but my reasoning, briefly:

1) If you have the ability to discern what is of value on ATS and what is not of value (as I am assuming most people reading this do, or at least aspire to) , then you can apply the same discernment to Wikipedia.

2) Even if you thing the Wiki article is worthless, the LINKS off of them are often the best first soucres for general info to go to on any given topic. That alone makes it an excellent resource; why re-invent the wheel?

VOTE... ATS Policy of NO Wikipedia Sources permited on ATS ( yes or no )

No.

If disallowed, it is the same as "Censoring"! Is this what ATS is all about?

I'll say yes for definitions of words or phrases. Those are pretty standard for the most part.

yes to wiki

i am still awaiting the evidence of its wide spread " errors " , to be honest

which is of course a catch 22 request - as for all we know - its wiki haters that might be doing most of the vandalism of wiki pages

"Source elitism". Pathetic.

reply to post by OverMan

Originally posted by OverMan
wiki yes

Death to tyranny!

It is just a reference!

"Whom controls the past controls the present controls the future" now what about this quote do you not understand as it applies to all sources information?

Lotta talk of BANNING and other Tyranical nonsense = I am about to delete my account and I just got here!

"...what about this quote..."? I wonder where you got that "Whom controls..." quote. Was it from Wikipedia? Who is it quoting?

Now a man named Eric Blair, ( also known as ) George Orwell wrote something like that in his book 1984.

"Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'
~ George Orwell

Notice the difference between these two "Quotes"? If you were meaning to quote Orwell from the 1984 book... it's an error. Somewhere along the lines translation got some jam on it... Then again, you might be quoting someone else... Is this someone else paraphrasing Orwell? Are you quoting yourself? Did you write that?

This illustrates this thread as well as anything... Claiming "Wikipedia" has sources is just as this post is contending with.... EVEN sources for what's published on Wikipedia is subject to the person paraphrasing the source and often giving the impression of a valid replication of the source or material, or even a "Quote", as in a direct quote. Most of which are not quotes, but "rephrasing" publications in Wikipedia using myriad "sources" and not direct quotes.

So if the "Whom controls..." quote is from Orwell..... I will give you a primary source for Orwell and can validate and verify... this real QUOTE.... In Fact here is a link to the book

Link ---> The Complete Works of George-Orwell
look at chapter 3

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.

*******
OverMan do NOT delete your account here! lol.... geeeesh!

Yes !!
Any censorship from any links describing or trying to explain a subject
should NEVER be stopped.

PS:
I know you guys went to Washington DC recently and I am so proud of you
That said, don't go all politically correct on us.
I've been reading about the credability, but I want hard facts.

No Censorship !!

On one hand, if you can't go to wikipedia, and read through the references and sources that are listed there, and cite them instead, you're probably lazy. Then again, a good wiki article is just that, a good article. Wikipedia is no less accurate most of the time than any news channel, etc. I say Yes permitted on ATS, because one wikipedia article can lead to a whole bunch of peer reviewed papers, studies, etc, or it can make someone who just skimmed the surface before commenting look like an asshat. +/+ if you ask me.

reply to post by Serafine


NO Wiki as a source. Too much room for error.
Maybe as a compliment to a source?

I would rather we ban using the bible as a source....

isnt it basicly the same logic? A collection of information in which the majority is just bs from idiots with an agenda.

Yes

I say yes with caution as any other source. My childrens school at one point said that we could not use wiki for any projects, I told the kids to ahead and do it anyway. They now do allow it.

reply to post by Serafine


Um, I think voting black or white on this is a disservice to what you are attempting.

I would say yes, but, with ammendments.

If your source is JUST wiki, than no. But if the Source is wiki, with links to the wiki's sources.... than all you are doing is providing people with a truncated source list, and should be acceptable.

There are PLENTY of wiki pages that have official sources for the information in the article... Wiki isn't all made up and non factual like people claim it is...

There is a little "Sources" feild at the bottom of most pages, that give the official sources, which 99% of the time turn out to be real sources.

So, I'm in favor of this...

Banning Wiki Sources from ATS threads that state the information as factual, and not circumstancial, or situational.

Ammendment 1.

When the Wiki page has official sources for the information on the page, then it can be used factually as long as it's used in it's proper context.

Then again, who is going to police this.... We need a tribunal in addition to the mods.

www.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal

It's a video game that allows the players to police themselves, and it works VERY well so far... with the exception of the few bugs in the system like not allowing your skip vote to actually take you to another reported player.

The concept is spot on though.

reply to post by Serafine


Yes to Wiki and every other source which people choose to use.

I don't need ATS to babysit me.

People should be allowed to cite whatever sources they choose to cite. They will either do a good job and choose good sources, or they won't.

Either way, I should be allowed to use my brain to decide whether I am going to buy into their theory or not. I don't need anyone else to decide for me by eliminating the possibility that I may accidentally view questionable material backed up by questionable sources.

Originally posted by idunno12
reply to post by Serafine

 

Yes to Wiki and every other source which people choose to use.

I don't need ATS to babysit me.

People should be allowed to cite whatever sources they choose to cite. They will either do a good job and choose good sources, or they won't.

Either way, I should be allowed to use my brain to decide whether I am going to buy into their theory or not. I don't need anyone else to decide for me by eliminating the possibility that I may accidentally view questionable material backed up by questionable sources.

I agree and disagree... hence why I voted yes, with an ammendment.

Somebody with a silver tongue can take a virtually sourceless claim and produce an army of followers in that movement...

(Birthers are a prime example... I'm not speaking of people who think that the document was forged, but I am speaking about the average person who believes he was born in Africa. They only believe that because, A. he's black, and B. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE (lol, to them it's millions) believe it too... and they don't need sources, or to even know why people think he is from Kenya, they just need to know many other people believe it too... IMO, disinfo is a bad thing.)

At the same time, it's critical to define what "Acceptible" sources are. For that to be done, there must be discussion. Then there is the process of teaching everyone the new rule... followed by the extra work the mods will have to do to police this new rule.

So... If we were all about bettering ATS, then yes... I vote for this WITH ammendments explained with more detail above.

P.S.

It's not about ATS babysitting you, it's about the MEMBERS of ATS make sure nobody is creating armies of people in support of non factual claims.

Big difference, IMO.

And truth be told, some people need to be babysat. Not you, not I, but that guy that still rides the bus... yeah, he does. If you know better, cool.... but not everybody knows better, and I don't see how you "Lose" out by weeding out the unfit topics?

Also, if this is your definition of ATS baby sitting you, then they already do that. They come in and snip out things people say all the time citing EXTREME TOS Violations.

This is just one extra Term for the Terms of Service. That's all.