One more reason to stop using wikipedia on ATS

Again, I can't find that term, ANYWHERE on wikipedia. Are you sure you didn't pull that out of midiar?

For search options, see Help:Searching.
Did you mean: gaddafi
Content pages Multimedia Help and Project pages Everything Advanced
There were no results matching the query. The page "Gaddafying" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. For search help, please visit Help:Searching.

Lloyd Pye has had an ongoing battle with Wikipedia regarding his 'Starchild' skull findings. He's attempted many times to correct misinformation and yet the censorship continues.

When opinions overcome the facts in the matter, nobody wins; at least Wiki could deign to host a debate on 'the facts' in any given situation. When I see actual censorship, I get very suspicious about the underpinnings of the site in question. Ditto when I see an attempt to heap scorn on someone rather than simply discussing the facts of the matter, as close as they can be determined. This is a tactic that I see often in 'debunking' sites; lots of childish egotistical smearing, not much actual discussion of the facts without an emotional overlay. It's a way that the discussion of the UFO issue (whatever you may think of that) has been effectively turned into something people giggle and guffaw about rather than discuss rationally; after all, it's a pretty big topic and none of us really know the details.

If they have an overseer population of people who always get the last word, that would indicate to me that the CIA or NSA has control of the thing. There is evidence that they control the vast majority of the MSM, after all. I read somewhere that there isn't a senior editor anywhere in the publishing or media field that isn't under the thumb of the CIA (and no, I can't source that... It makes sense given the full spectrum dominance we've all come to know and loathe.

but there are many links used as footnotes that ARE useful

reply to post by Mythfury


Read through the thread. It's only 4 pages. You'll see that the sentence about Gaddafying was removed from the wiki page about 30 minutes after I made this thread. It had been there for months before that though.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


They can be useful, when they actually work. The problem is anyone can edit an article and list some BS sources. The article can remain incorrect for a long time before anyone bothers to check the sources.

I am definitely in agreement that wikipedia is full of bunk.

However, this being said, I still find it a very useful place to get a high level overview and research starting point for things.

Maybe "paid in rice" is a similar metaphor to how US soldiers are paid peanuts.

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

They can be useful, when they actually work. The problem is anyone can edit an article and list some BS sources. The article can remain incorrect for a long time before anyone bothers to check the sources.

Well said. Good as a resource, not reliable enough to be evidence.

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by miniatus

 

thanks to Daniel Tosh from t0sh.0 .. kind of a sick thing, and I am normally a fan of his.. but he challenged his viewers to do it and invented the term... there's videos of people doing it.

I don't know who Daniel Tosh is, but I trust that statement is enough is get an accurate picture of him. I'm glad that's where wikipedia gets its info. Awesome.

Ironically Tosh.O's Wikipedia page was vandalized quite extensively itself......But of course, this was because Tosh.O asked his viewers to do just that! tosh.comedycentral.com...

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by darkbake
There was a study done in England that found the error rate on Wikipedia was less than that of Encyclopedia Britannica. As far as the internet goes, that is very reliable. Seeing as we can't exactly reference books, what would you like us to reference? Fox News? MSNBC? Some random site someone found on Google?

I have the ability to access scientific journals online in some cases, but not many people do. Don't you think Wikipedia is a great source? In fact, I think more people should be using sources.

Any one willing to bet that George Soros was ALSO behind that study?

I see sites like Wikipedia as nothing more than MSM behind a stealth facade of fake credibility.

Well, I consider Wikipedia a good source to use on AboveTopSecret, and I do try to source my arguments as much as I can remember to. I use other sources, as well. In the end, I think it is probably a good idea to consider the source used and keep that in mind.

The main argument against Wikipedia is that it focuses on majority opinion - although there are forums for every topic on there where people keep watch and bring up things that need to be discussed.

Since it is an encyclopedia brought to us by the people, it will generally be for the people - I guess its flaw is the same on Democracy has, and that is if the people are not intelligent enough to know what is for their own good.

Err is human. All wrong and ordinary people and scientists. Rewrite the history books. Wikipedia is not an exception. So that errors and mistakes will always be.