posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:58 AM
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?
edit on 31-1-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)