MasterP said:
Bitey said:
Which ever professor told you that is super fail.
So the dean of the EE department and associate dean of the kimmel school are super fail? I guess the head of optical physics research at UNCC is super fail too then.
Because my sourse *COULD* be wrong doesn’t mean it is. Every “scholarly” source is fallible but unlike traditional “scholary” sources, Wiki articles aren’t written by just one or two people. I can’t tell you how many times in high school Encarta, Britanica, and World Book gave completely conflicting information, to the point where I typically had to stab wildly between what the three said and hope the teacher didn’t know any better. To that end, Wiki is the only encyclopedia that actually lists the information sources for their articles.
Guess that’s the difference between a liberal arts major and a major based in science, we don’t *edited* with our peers.
Answer me this though, because now I’m really curious, when the whiteboard in front of me has 12 hours worth of math on it that proves a solution in a “scholarly” textbook on theoretical physics to be completely wrong, like not even using the right equations kind of wrong, am I allowed to actually use my brain and determine that MAYBE the textbook is wrong or do I have to stick with your idealism and just erase everything out of the assumption that the printed medium is an infallible truth that cannot be wrong? Btw, lab experiments backed up our equations and proved the book and about a dozen journal articles to be wrong. We used equations on Wiki as a foundation. I’m just saying…
In the read world, “scholarly” encyclopedias, journal articles, and textbooks aren’t nearly as accurate as you give them credit. The average Wiki article is less than 20 pages and has twice as many authors and sources as the average textbook, from the sheer number of eyes alone it’s far more likely that mistakes are going to be caught and fixed on Wiki than on any printed source.
Btw, you really think a non-profit won’t lie in their publications to get more funding, sponsorships, or attention? lol?
I do like though how instead of actually doing what I asked, IE prove me wrong, you mindlessly drone on about how where I get some of my information *might* be wrong. You don’t actually attempt to prove me wrong, probably because you can’t, but that’s getting off topic. So we’re back to the original statement:
MasterP said:
either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up
I don’t have any need or want to “prove” you wrong to be quite honest, because I know that no matter what I say or show or bring to the table, in your opinion I will be wrong, so why I continue to do so really makes no sense to me, but here I go again.
You really are the birth child of serious sam and negative nancy…
Anyone who uses wikipedia as an end source is fail, anything that can be used and edited by anyone is fail for a “reliable” source of information. /troll (aka make u mad lol)
At any moment at any time your information could be changed, this is NOT a reliable source of information. So YES just because it can change at any moment it does mean that the source is NOT reliable. How you could think any different is really odd.
I will give you that your one example of Wikipedia being right is amazing and a good job on the student’s part who figured that out. Again though you used Wikipedia as a foundation and starting point and that one example does not account for the many times it has been wrong or not given the whole picture.
It has come a long way since 2007 when it was basically banned from use by most schools. Again though great starting place and some times could end up being a finishing place, but always just check your *edited* before you go with what Wikipedia has lol. That is all I am saying, please don’t feel like I am trying to tear down your personal walls of reality, but if you do a simple Google search on “Wikipedia wrong?” there are plenty of arguments for it and against it.
The world isn’t full of liars and schemers, there are a lot of them, but it isn’t everybody. If that were the case your argument for Wikipedia would be just as flawed since so many minds go into creating what it reports as the truth. Anything and everything is fallible, most scholarly sources are legitimate. Fact of the matter is Wikipedia hasn’t been proven as a reliable source yet. I just realized that this is a rare case of MasterP is being very liberal with this, whereas some of the more liberal people are conservative lol.