Good News

Aoxomoxoa said:
The Wiki is as accurate as any other source for factual entries but not so much when it comes to politics or contentious issues. Mind you it has got much better since tools were developed to track down where edits are originating from.

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
Click to expand...

That may be true; but it is a member updated source prone to error and really requires other sources for credible confirmation. I would never rely on it as my primary source.

I think it is great tool, because it is quick and easy, when used for searching out information and then seek out more credible sources to confirm.

Do you think college professors would allow it as a source?
 
Truth Detector said:
That may be true; but it is a member updated source prone to error and really requires other sources for credible confirmation. I would never rely on it as my primary source.

I think it is great tool, because it is quick and easy, when used for searching out information and then seek out more credible sources to confirm.

Do you think college professors would allow it as a source?
Click to expand...

I would say it depends on the subject if it were to do with Chemistry, Physics or Maths then it is likely to be as trustworthy as any other source. I will have to ask my sons about whether universities allow Wiki as a primary source.
 
Taft2016 said:
No, that's not what I think. I said that was the law.

Words in my mouth again, and arguing against them.

Hammer, hammer, hammer.



Hammer, hammer, hammer.
Click to expand...

It is futile arguing with him, he is more interested in taking cheap shots than actually discussing the topic seriously.
 
Taft2016 said:
No, that's not what I think. I said that was the law.

Words in my mouth again, and arguing against them.

Hammer, hammer, hammer.



Hammer, hammer, hammer.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe it is a worthwhile moral argument then why is it important to understand such a "complex issue." The moral consideration of slavery is not a complex issue. Maybe for someone like you who seems to think the fact that it was legal is some sort of revelation, but for most educated and moral people it is quite simple.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
If you don't believe it is a worthwhile moral argument then why is it important to understand such a "complex issue." The moral consideration of slavery is not a complex issue. Maybe for someone like you who seems to think the fact that it was legal is some sort of revelation, but for most educated and moral people it is quite simple.
Click to expand...

Slavery has been gone for generations. For a "progressive", you spend a lot of time in the past.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
If you don't believe it is a worthwhile moral argument then why is it important to understand such a "complex issue." The moral consideration of slavery is not a complex issue.
Click to expand...

For academic reasons. To have an intelligent discussion. To understand the issue completely and accurately.

As to speaking in knee-jerk soundbites.
 
Wiki is a decent source. Right wingers hate it because they have not been allowed to use it for misinformation. It is exactly the tools Tom mentions, that have improved it, which most enraged the right wingers and why they started the conservopedia. Many right wingers have been banned for abusing the editing standards.

But anyway, there is no point in debating it's general virtues. If you have something that shows the entry on Tennessee was inaccurate then present it.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Wiki is a decent source. Right wingers hate it because they have not been allowed to use it for misinformation. It is exactly the tools Tom mentions, that have improved it, which most enraged the right wingers and why they started the conservopedia. Many right wingers have been banned for abusing the editing standards.

But anyway, there is no point in debating it's general virtues. If you have something that shows the entry on Tennessee was inaccurate then present it.
Click to expand...

False. I don't want to use a site that can be edited by anyone. You're a liar.
 
Taft2016 said:
For academic reasons. To have an intelligent discussion. To understand the issue completely and accurately.

As to speaking in knee-jerk soundbites.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows it was legal. It's not a revelation or some unconsidered piece of the puzzle in this supposed "complex issue."

Anyone who would look upon it as me defending theft is severely lacking in morals. One can not rightfully own another person. The concept negates individual rights altogether.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Wiki is a decent source. Right wingers hate it because they have not been allowed to use it for misinformation. It is exactly the tools Tom mentions, that have improved it, which most enraged the right wingers and why they started the conservopedia. Many right wingers have been banned for abusing the editing standards.
Click to expand...
This is bull shit.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Everyone knows it was legal. It's not a revelation or some unconsidered piece of the puzzle in this supposed "complex issue."

Anyone who would look upon it as me defending theft is severely lacking in morals. One can not rightfully own another person. The concept negates individual rights altogether.
Click to expand...

I never knew a slave or a slave owner before. When did you free your slaves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top