reply to post by eriktheawful
Thanks dude. Your comments are very appreciated.
The environment here does appear somewhat hostile. I can understand why many new users to this site might react in an adverse way because of that...
I guess like you say that comes from the fact that ATS gets a lot of different people come here. I guess the trick is for everyone to remember that
each new person is different from the last. New users will react accord to how they are treated... Some people will always be dicks... The world
Where you said "I will tell you right now, YOU are the first whom I've debated this subject that has actually stayed much more civilized and presented
very good arguments."
I'm an admin on Uncyclopedia so I'm used to dealing with confrontational situations. Even so I struggled to keep myself civilized here. I'm not
surprised if many new users are not able to do so.
I kinda figured that people debating this issue would have read the wiki article on this already, but I will go into more detail about how I use
Wikipedia as some reading this may not do this:
*. Read the article all the way through...
*. Each time you see a number like  in the text that's telling you that there is a "source" to the information they are talking about. By
clicking on that you can find the original document they got the info from. So, if you wanted to find out more about where the %25 came from you
would click on the link and see where it went. Sometimes they link to the document itself, sometimes it's just a reference to it and you have to find
it yourself... Obviously by checking the quality of the references you can learn something about the quality of likely reliability of the
* Then I take a look at the page history... I scan down looking quickly at the comments getting a feel for what parts of the article people are
debating, and what is being edited. I want to know how old the article is, and how many different people are editing it. That helps tell me the
* Then I take a look at the talk page. That's often where I learn far more than actually reading the article itself. On the talk page you can see
what the controversial parts of the article are, and from that you can look at what both "sides" of the controversy are saying. That way you get a
more balanced view, and not just the view of the last person to edit the article.
* When I have done all that I sometimes leave a comment on the talk page about an issue I might have found, and see what kinda reply I get later...
From doing the above kinda thing on Wikipedia IMO it's actually possible to use Wikipedia as a very powerful and effective tool. Even if it's just a
place to find source documents. I would not recommend just reading an article on Wiki and taking it as gospel without putting a fair amount of effort
into checking how good that info was. Some Wiki pages are much better than others...
From clicking on the sources for the article we are talking about II found this from GALLUP:
IMO GALLUP are one of the better people at taking surveys.
The article which suggests it's %25 does appear rather high to me. I can't easily find the source it gives either, but I did find this without too
I like the part where it say "Eleven of the 1009 people surveyed thought Buzz Lightyear was the first person on the Moon."
Everyone know Sheriff
Woody got there first!
On the wiki article, where if says:
"In a 1994 poll by The Washington Post, 9% of the respondents said that it was possible that astronauts did not go to the Moon and another 5% were
unsure. A 1999 Gallup poll found that 6% of the Americans surveyed doubted that the Moon landings happened and that 5% of those surveyed had no
opinion, which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll. "
Lots of different polls giving similar results... Looks good to me...
...IMO.that is probably a bit closer to the mark. My point is that it's not just a small number of people... Of the people who were asked in those
polls I also wonder how many have been exposed to "hoaxer" information. As those polls were taken from the general public I suspect the findings
would be different if people who had been exposed to "hoaxer" information were sampled instead.
Do ATS not do polls on this kinda stuff? That might be funny to watch....
Again, thanks for your kind words.
edit on 5-3-2013 by MrN9k because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-3-2013 by MrN9k because:
(no reason given)
edit on 5-3-2013 by MrN9k because: rrrr