-
Too many ads? Join our community of cat lovers now to reduce ads by 90%! Click here to join for free!
What the CIA is up to when they're not chasing hoodlums
- Thread starter skippymjp
- Start Date
Apparently they have too much time on their hands
This is why I'm astonished that Wikipedia is considered an acceptable resource for any purpose! Everybody's got an agenda, and it's only through multiple layers of verification across a wide range of sources, followed by extremely careful editing to remove all hint of bias, that anything like accuracy can be achieved. I don't even trust myself enough to edit an encyclopedia -- I sure don't trust the PR guy at Diebold!
I trust the sourced articles. I figure that if i know where they got their information from then why not believe it. Everything has a bias, and wiki's one is one i tend to agree with, so it doesn't bother me so much.
At least they are aware of the problem, and are willing to go to great lengths to check the articles.
Plus its free, what can you really expect?
At least they are aware of the problem, and are willing to go to great lengths to check the articles.
Plus its free, what can you really expect?
Personally I find every source has a level of biasness. Wiki just has more of it.
I don't have anything important to say or add, but I just want to say I really like your response there!!!!! ^^^Originally Posted by CarolPetunia
This is why I'm astonished that Wikipedia is considered an acceptable resource for any purpose! Everybody's got an agenda, and it's only through multiple layers of verification across a wide range of sources, followed by extremely careful editing to remove all hint of bias, that anything like accuracy can be achieved. I don't even trust myself enough to edit an encyclopedia -- I sure don't trust the PR guy at Diebold!
The university I attend doesn't even allow it to be used as a source. Last fall a kid in my class wondered why he got a D and stated he got everything off of wikipedia. He refused to read any of the books in class saying they were all biased.Originally Posted by CarolPetunia
This is why I'm astonished that Wikipedia is considered an acceptable resource for any purpose! Everybody's got an agenda, and it's only through multiple layers of verification across a wide range of sources, followed by extremely careful editing to remove all hint of bias, that anything like accuracy can be achieved. I don't even trust myself enough to edit an encyclopedia -- I sure don't trust the PR guy at Diebold!
Anyhoo, I just wonder why I never get to see any of these articles? Darnit!!! I would love to see a Wiki entry that has been tampered with before I die.
I like Wikipedia because it makes me research. If I read it on there I'll track down the facts of things just to see if it's right or wrong.Originally Posted by CarolPetunia
This is why I'm astonished that Wikipedia is considered an acceptable resource for any purpose! Everybody's got an agenda, and it's only through multiple layers of verification across a wide range of sources, followed by extremely careful editing to remove all hint of bias, that anything like accuracy can be achieved. I don't even trust myself enough to edit an encyclopedia -- I sure don't trust the PR guy at Diebold!
However, I do agree that it should never ever be used as a source for citation in a paper written for academic purposes.
