MasterP said:
Nickname said:
MasterP said:
MasterP said:
either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up
there is no statement in this thread for us TO disprove, so im not sure why you keep stressing this point…
Their bashing is a continuation from the other thread where Bitey accused me of making most of what I posted up. I asked for proof that I made it up and got “you can’t use Wiki as a source you noob” as a reply. It doesn’t really prove what I posted to be wrong but ok…
Which is more likely to contain accurate information: a wiki page written by 8 people or a journal article written by 2?
**a wiki page written by 8 people writing through hear-say or a journal article written by 2 who have done plenty of research in that field. (im just being facetious lol)
That doesn’t matter. It’s still an Encyclopedia. You can have the most exhaustively researched, unbiased, perfect wiki page that no one in the world disputes, but the fact that it has been summarized from primary and secondary sources mean that the information itself loses value. The more steps from a primary document to the final product, the less the value of the information. Wiki is really only bad because of this.
Citing information of wiki is all and fine for forum debates because posting huge documents is retarded and a good summary is fine. When you start asking for specific entries and page numbers like you did with NuRayz, then wiki becomes an improper source and you should not use it as such.
MasterP is right though, Wiki used to be *edited* with terrible information but in the past 3 years it has become respected for this thoroughness in fact checking. Yes there are better sources out there, but for quick reliable information, there isn’t anything better.