One more reason to stop using wikipedia on ATS

reply to post by ZeroReady AKA Trollee the trollish troll

If you want information that is not on wikipedia, here is one example. This is a free, publicly accessible, peer reviewed article on the differences between monocot plants and dicots.

en.wikipedia.org...

First paragraph.

reply to post by OccamAssassin


No I didn't mean that the information itself (specifically the differences between monocots and dicots) was not to be found on wiki. I meant that there are places you can go to that is not wiki to find information.

I think you misunderstood me or I didn't word my thoughts correctly.

reply to post by ZeroReady

The wiki on it simply said that samurai were aid in land. I changed it to say they were paid in rice because that's how they were paid.

Except of course during varying times of Japanese history when samurai were paid with land. Sorry to keep going on about this, but you did however originally say

Samurai were not landowners, they were paid in rice

They may very well have been paid in rice, however lots of Samurai owned lots of land. So making a point about Wikipedia being inaccurate, by using an inaccurate statement is kinda careless you know, its all good though.

REGARDLESS.

You might enjoy this.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The Samurai

Duration:45 minutes

First broadcast:Thursday 24 December 2009

Melvyn Bragg and guests Gregory Irvine, Nicola Liscutin and Angus Lockyer discuss the history of the Samurai and the role of their myth in Japanese national identity.

I've found that Wiki is useful as a tool for getting a very basic overview of a topic. Helpful for getting a direction to go in researching for more in depth information.

No, it's definitely not the be all end all of information sourcing, but it's useful in its own way. Like with everything on the internet, user beware.

reply to post by Tuttle


You're right. You win. I've gone and gotten myself so worked up that I don't even know what I thought I knew anymore. I've got my history book telling me one thing, wikipedia telling me another, and now the BBC is chiming in too. Oh and I'm spreading disinfo about samurai on wikipedia as well. Great. Fine. One more of my threads in a long line of disinfo and lies, hopefully to be relegated to the bowls of the ATS servers and never to be spoken of again.

Forget it.

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by g146541
All I need to know about wiki is the israeli terrorist regime edits alot of it.
This alone suggests it is full of outright lies and disinformation.

Where's your source for that claim? ...

I hope this will work for starters.

We all know those vermin are all about lies and disinformation.

reply to post by ZeroReady


Hehe your a funny guy man,

Take it easy,

Peace,

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by tport17
I don't see a problem with using Wikipedia...

"There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then there's Wikipedia."

If George Soros recommends Wikipedia, it MUST be true, right?

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)

It is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence.

There's a reason Soros supports it. Because his vast minions can manipulate it. And manipulate it they do.

Wow, way to quote only part of the first sentence I wrote. It is people like you who should not be on Wikipedia.

Here is my full quote.

I don't see a problem with using Wikipedia as long as you understand you will need back up sources to verify the information given. If the given sources aren't sufficient, find your own.

But continue going on about whatever it is you're going on about.

Wikipedia can be useful but it also means obtaining another source for proof. I went to the Syria part and found errors there. I couldn't believe the person who wrote it didn't or hasn't added Islamic extremists to the demographics. I saved him worrying about it

We all know history is written by the victors.

The web used to be a go to source to counter the main stream. The people behind the propaganda machine hate that there is any other source for information other than their own.

How long did you think it was going to be before they completely infiltrated this source too? The last respite is your own cognizance. Use that to read between the lines. And reserve judgment if you can.

It helps to be older. I remember how things used to be. I already lived thru this once before, I know the lies when I see them.

Same sh*t, different day.

reply to post by ZeroReady


You're absolutely right.. As a recent college graduate myself, I learned that the world misses out on a huge swath of very well thought out, verified, well documented, and very accurate information. They require some extra work to get to sometimes, but the end result is s source that's a much higher quality than sentencing like Wikipedia. That's not to say Wikipedia is all bad though, sometimes the citations section of article can be a decent starting area for research, but that's abut all the faith I have in it.

As far as other web pages like info wars or those blogs, meh. Not even worth the effort it takes to write negatively about them.

I have changed stuff in the past only to see it removed despite the fact its true. There was a wiki about the drug war which claimed cannabis was a gateway drug and so i put in a sentence about the blackmarket being responsible for people moving to hard substances with a link to a study and they removed it. William Coopers wikipedia page is also slanted against him so I tried adding some other points of view and what do you know, next day its gone.

reply to post by ZeroReady


Cannot information on Wikipedia simply be verified by using the references at the bottom of any wiki article?

And what about locked articles that cannot be edited by any tom, dick, or harry who decides they want to change something?

Is not all information (i.e. books, movies, documentaries, essays, etc) to be taken in with some skepticism?

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by ZeroReady

 

Is not all information (i.e. books, movies, documentaries, essays, etc) to be taken in with some skepticism?

Yes, it is. I mentioned this earlier. You have to have equal amounts of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism for the whole knowledge thing to work.

Look at a judge. He has to determine the rightness or wrongness of something based on evidence - rationalism. He does this without being there and witnessing the crime take place. But through living his own life and experiencing the world with his own senses he gains valuable experience that will aid his rationalism - empiricism. And he has to be skeptical, or a lawyer who's just a good actor may sway him unduly.

But the judge has got to have all three, rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, just like anyone else searching for truth. And he can't let one be more powerful than the others.

I am pretty sure that MANY people on *this* site here are very suspicious about Wikpedia, while, AT THE SAME TIME, taking words coming from nutcases such as Jones, Icke etc..etc...as "facts".

As for me, I trust WIkipedia 10000x more as being a reasonable source of general information, over the next random conspiracy site or sites similar to "beforeitsnews" and other internet excrement with the latest "bigfoot news" or "proof that the moon landing was a hoax".

reply to post by ZeroReady


Okay, what you say is perfectly reasonable, but this really does not lend credence to your argument that Wikipedia is a bad source of information.

In the context of Wikipedia, the user is the judge, so the information on the wiki article must judged according to the criteria you described in your response to my post.

Now one may be a "bad" judge and take the evidence presented at face value and render a premature verdict, or one could be a "good" judge and actually investigate to see if said evidence actually corresponds with reality.

My point being that no one should really use one source to back up their claim, but the reason I like Wikipedia is that most articles have multiple sources to back them up if you simply scroll down to the bottom of the article and view the references.

Anyone who claims that Wikipedia is the vault of truth that no one can question does not live in the real world, but anyone who claims that it cannot be trusted at all is just as guilty.

ETA: If I found an article with 85% factual information and 15% unreliable or false information, and preceded to ridicule the source and brand it untrustworthy, would that not be a straw man?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by tehdouglas


It can be. It wasnt for me back in the days, but it can be. You saying it's not, isn't true, but them saying it is, is true. Not all people pass through the gateway, bro.

reply to post by tehdouglas

Originally posted by tehdouglas
I have changed stuff in the past only to see it removed despite the fact its true. There was a wiki about the drug war which claimed cannabis was a gateway drug and so i put in a sentence about the blackmarket being responsible for people moving to hard substances with a link to a study and they removed it. William Coopers wikipedia page is also slanted against him so I tried adding some other points of view and what do you know, next day its gone.

I saw the same thing happening a few days ago and wrote a post about it here.

The actor that did the voice of Charlie Brown has terminal cancer and because he spoke out against the "cartel" he was silenced.

reply to post by ZeroReady


"Do your intelligence a favor and boycott wikipedia"???????

Okay, find 1 single contradicting piece of evidence, about Imma pick a random topic, about DNA, that contradicts every Harvard, Yale, or any other University archive. I would love to see it. In fact. There are probably far more of them working on maintaining a credible website, than you are. Nice work on YOUR internet library.

"Deny Ignorance"? Wiki Ignorance.