- This topic has 43 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just wondering after the recent walls of text. How many hours do you guys spend researching, typing and editing within this section of the forum?
I mean, I suspect a trend when this section opened to the amount of gaming one does.
Note from the office of NoDice
“keyboard cowboy less, game more”
tl;dr?
If you already know the facts it doesn’t take a whole lot of research to post here. Just a quick confirm from wiki and you’re done.
Nickname said:
lol masterp uses wiki for his sources
And yet no one proves what I post to be factually incorrect. I know there are three versions of the truth but Wiki has yet to steer me wrong.
MasterP said:
I know there are three versions of the truth but Wiki has yet to steer me wrong.your truth, my truth, the real truth?
MajorMajorMajor said:
MasterP said:
I know there are three versions of the truth but Wiki has yet to steer me wrong.your truth, my truth, the real truth?
+1
NuRayZ said:
im pretty sure it’s my truth, major’s truth, and masterP’s lies
[user=nodice] likes this [/user]
NuRayZ said:
and masterP’s lies
Grow a pair and either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up. Getting real tired of your constant and unfounded jabs at every post I make.
Posting something OTHER than liberal one-liners works as well.
And yes, Major’s fatness is a global constant. If it’s not in Wiki by now it will be by tomorrow afternoon
Of course the math explaining it may take a good deal longer to crunch. Nickname I’ll need you and Shawn Rigdon to meet me in Anne Vail’s old office at 8am to solve these equations that explain how a fat person in their late teens or early 20s could literally weight that much without breaking the space-time continuum and creating light-emitting black holes. I can get you started, and by started I mean I’ve got you a whiteboard and markers.why so serious?
here is my proof. My truth != Your truth. therefore Your truth = lies.
i was also under the impression
meant silly, quit being a such a serious sam.MasterP said:
MasterP said:
either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up
I just gave you proof, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME! Clearly in the humor of that comic they were showing how anyone can change anything on Wikipedia, I think it is a great “starting point” for any research that you might be doing, but it should never be the at all end all in any reference you ever make and never in a research paper. Which ever professor told you that is super fail. You can use it to find something and then check real legitimate non-profit or scholarly sources to make sure it is a correct reference, then you can use it. Just saying, but you keep right on using an encyclopedia, that anyone with a peanut for a brain an Internet connection and a computer can change.
Bitey said:
MasterP said:
MasterP said:
either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up
I just gave you proof, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME! Clearly in the humor of that comic they were showing how anyone can change anything on Wikipedia, I think it is a great “starting point” for any research that you might be doing, but it should never be the at all end all in any reference you ever make and never in a research paper. Which ever professor told you that is super fail. You can use it to find something and then check real legitimate non-profit or scholarly sources to make sure it is a correct reference, then you can use it. Just saying, but you keep right on using an encyclopedia, that anyone with a peanut for a brain an Internet connection and a computer can change.
This
I use wiki only for the sources on the bottom of the page. Quoting directly from wiki is like using a tertiary source, which is basically useless.
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
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.
Basically this I can agree with :
“I understand what their concerns are. There’s no question that [on Wikipedia and similar sites] some things are great and some things are questionable. Some of the pages could be by eighth graders,” he said. “But to simply say ‘don’t use that one’ might take students in the wrong direction from the perspective of information literacy.”
Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”
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…
And saying wikipedia is more trustworthy because more people review it… sorry I really just can’t buy that. And yes I have to agree any professor that told you otherwise is fail. Wikipedia is fun to read for general information but not when you need to trust the information is accurate.
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?
Bitey I really hate to burst your bubble on this but Wiki is alot older than you think. Try 2001. It has also been proven by at least a dozen studies to be just as accurate, if not moreso, than traditional encyclopedias. There have been numerous studies done to test how long it takes for errors to be corrected with some errors corrected within 1 minute of being posted. Do a search for Wiki reliability studies, you’ll be surprised.
- The forum ‘Political Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.