Idiotic Quote of the Day

Unfortunately, this also means that Jonathan Lamy is unable to consult Wikipedia on the proper spelling of "blackout."
 
im sad to say i dont understand what is idiotic about it. While im sure wikipedia is a good resource - people need to be able to use other sites - maybe even open a real encyclopedia
 
Doesn't Wikipedia have a ton of fact checkers that verify information? I never understood why in this day and age people keep claiming Wikipedia is not a good source of factual information. Sure, back in the day when it was wholly unregulated it was sketchy, but not now. Plus, if you have half a brain it's not hard to verify what you read there elsewhere. Shit, they have the citation links right on the page.
 
Is that guy trolling? Misspelling and incorrect use of "perish".

"Perish the thought" eh? OK I'll now forget about this.
 
im sad to say i dont understand what is idiotic about it. While im sure wikipedia is a good resource - people need to be able to use other sites - maybe even open a real encyclopedia

Heh, me too. I was like, that's actually pretty funny and spot on. And I fucking hate the RIAA/MPAA as much as the next geek. Hopefully Steve will chime in and let us know what the hell we missed.
 
Heh, me too. I was like, that's actually pretty funny and spot on. And I fucking hate the RIAA/MPAA as much as the next geek. Hopefully Steve will chime in and let us know what the hell we missed.

You missed the RIAA being petty and resorting to insults.
 
Whats idiotic about it is that Wikipedia is not a creditable source. Yes the argument of fact checker is there but this site can be updated by anyone at anytime. I don't know about you guys but the professors i had would laugh at me and fail me for using wiki for a cited source.
 
Is that guy trolling? Misspelling and incorrect use of "perish".

"Perish the thought" eh? OK I'll now forget about this.

I'm not sure I agree with you that he is using the idiom, "perish the thought," incorrectly. It seems pretty clear that it's meant to be ironic.
 
He has a serious misunderstanding of what research is, and what would make it original. Let alone the english language...
 
Whats idiotic about it is that Wikipedia is not a creditable source. Yes the argument of fact checker is there but this site can be updated by anyone at anytime. I don't know about you guys but the professors i had would laugh at me and fail me for using wiki for a cited source.

Wikipedia's articles are cited... :rolleyes:

I have seen less credible sources from crazy professors with a .edu domain. Professors will accept far sketchier sources than what wikipedia cites just because its "Wikipedia" "Oh Noooes!" Even if you needed peer reviewed sources you could almost make a case for wikipedia so there really isn't a grand amount of justification to blacklist. Christ.
 
I don't know about you guys but the professors i had would laugh at me and fail me for using wiki for a cited source.

Agreed.

I remember years back in English or psychology and having to write a 10+ page paper. One of the requirements was that you had to use a editorial article (can't remember the exact wording by my professors..). Basically you had to do a special engine search for these articles, most of which were boring as all blazes and worded so abstract that even the simple minded being had to re-read it 7-8 times.
 
Doesn't Wikipedia have a ton of fact checkers that verify information? I never understood why in this day and age people keep claiming Wikipedia is not a good source of factual information. Sure, back in the day when it was wholly unregulated it was sketchy, but not now. Plus, if you have half a brain it's not hard to verify what you read there elsewhere. Shit, they have the citation links right on the page.
The problem is when people mess around and change small things. Even media guys got in trouble using Wikipedia like when a Toronto newspaper used a quote on Wikipedia calling the late Rick Rypien "crazy".

http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2011/0...nfortunate-but-canucks-should-just-let-it-go/

I also found pages that were defaced like one time I looked up Ip Man and it was all sorts of weird. I have a screenshot somewhere that I can post later.
 
I knew it was from a SOPA supporter right off the bat. RIAA sucks.

Wikipedia is a great source of information. I use it several times daily. Yes, I would hope I would use other sources when doing any meaningful research (as any one in their right mind would). You never use a single source, and you verify the information with multiple sources or independent research (experiments, etc.). We used to use a single encyclopedia entry for research in school and it was fine. Nothing different with Wikipedia. Just got a bad rap because of some people doing crappy edits to prove a point...
 
Doesn't Wikipedia have a ton of fact checkers that verify information? I never understood why in this day and age people keep claiming Wikipedia is not a good source of factual information. Sure, back in the day when it was wholly unregulated it was sketchy, but not now. Plus, if you have half a brain it's not hard to verify what you read there elsewhere. Shit, they have the citation links right on the page.

You sir, are bright, most people are not. Wikipedia is a great source of information as we both realize.
 
Whats idiotic about it is that Wikipedia is not a creditable source. Yes the argument of fact checker is there but this site can be updated by anyone at anytime. I don't know about you guys but the professors i had would laugh at me and fail me for using wiki for a cited source.

As are most history books. Read a history book written by a WW2 veteran and then read the horrible censored version that is being taught in high schools and colleges today. Sad. Really sad.
 
As are most history books. Read a history book written by a WW2 veteran and then read the horrible censored version that is being taught in high schools and colleges today. Sad. Really sad.

Well, I don't know much about history, but I do know that I love you.
 
As are most history books. Read a history book written by a WW2 veteran and then read the horrible censored version that is being taught in high schools and colleges today. Sad. Really sad.

A WW2 veteran will tell you a story strongly influenced by emotions. Very narrow field of view.
 
The sad thing is that most people don't realize that the page loads and then an overlay loads on top... If you hit escape before the overlay loads you can read the pages on Wikipedia.
 
Whats idiotic about it is that Wikipedia is not a creditable source. Yes the argument of fact checker is there but this site can be updated by anyone at anytime. I don't know about you guys but the professors i had would laugh at me and fail me for using wiki for a cited source.

Most professors also refuse to check their E-Mail, or even have one. Wikipedia isn't something you should cite, but as a resource to point you in the right direction. God knows when I'm writing a paper on a subject, Wikipedia is a great way to point you in the right direction. Guess what, they do in fact cite their sources, which are credible and you can use as your source. I have yet to find a Wiki that isn't incredibly accurate.

Professors who hate Wikipedia just remember all the crap they had to go through to do their research. They want you to waste a week with hunting down information and facts through libraries and newspaper articles, while a simple wiki search will get you the same information more up to date, all wrapped up with a bow.
 
The sad thing is that most people don't realize that the page loads and then an overlay loads on top... If you hit escape before the overlay loads you can read the pages on Wikipedia.

Somehow I doubt that most people browsing the web know that.
 
Who the heck cites the wiki when researching stuff? Of course that's asking for trouble.
Just follow the links to the sources of the page's info, and go from there. It's incredibly easy to use the Wikipedia as a research search engine, it cuts down on time spent finding material greatly, and is easy to get to for pretty much everyone.
 
What is done in Real Life(tm) when researching college-level projects is to use Wikipedia as a starting source to find other resources. You never ever cite Wikipedia, you cite the research that the wiki page is getting its information from, but only AFTER you fact-check the source. Citing wikipedia gives you a ZERO on citations pages and any information in the paper you're writing from whence that information is being cited from.

So, who wants to write the "Demise of" portion of the RIAA wiki page?
 
RIAA.com is down. Ok, which one of you guys is responsible? You're in big trouble mister!

Wiki still up. Google what you want and when the page loads hit stop before it changes to the "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge" page...

Read on.
 
Wikipedia is great if:

You want technical information like the pinout for HDMI or the chemical formula for ethanol.

Wikipedia is worthless if:

You want information about people, society, politics, religion, history, etc. Articles for these subjects are so loaded with bias and propaganda that the information can't be trusted.

Like most resources, you just have to use Wikipedia selectively.
 
What does that have to do with his commentary on Wiki and a student relying on other methods to conduct research for once?

Because the only reason he is commenting on that is the blackout in protest of SOPA which the tweeter fully supports. It is just RIAA hating on people with common sense, trying to downplay the importance of what Wikipedia provides.
 
im sad to say i dont understand what is idiotic about it. While im sure wikipedia is a good resource - people need to be able to use other sites - maybe even open a real encyclopedia

This is why you never cite Wikipedia in a paper. Instead, read and use the sources that Wikipedia cites. A 'real encyclopedia' does not necessarily have better information than wikipedia. I mean, I can always go back to my parents house and read about the USSR in their encyclopedia from the '80s.
 
I remember a paper on how accurate Wikipedia is in comparison to Encyclopedia Britannica.

The result was a wash. With wikipedia equaling the number of errors found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Total accuracy was around 80% for both resources.
 
Doesn't Wikipedia have a ton of fact checkers that verify information? I never understood why in this day and age people keep claiming Wikipedia is not a good source of factual information. Sure, back in the day when it was wholly unregulated it was sketchy, but not now. Plus, if you have half a brain it's not hard to verify what you read there elsewhere. Shit, they have the citation links right on the page.

Coming from a backgound of nuclear power, being an ex nuclear reactor operator, every time I see anything on nuclear physics or reactors on wiki...I have to laugh at how much incorrect information is out there. Of course, being rusty, I have no desire to correct the world and I am sure there are many others with the same experiences I have on it. In short, I would not trust wiki for anything highly technical.

No loss.
 
RIAA.com is down. Ok, which one of you guys is responsible? You're in big trouble mister!

Wiki still up. Google what you want and when the page loads hit stop before it changes to the "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge" page...

Read on.

The sad thing is that most people don't realize that the page loads and then an overlay loads on top... If you hit escape before the overlay loads you can read the pages on Wikipedia.

Or hit the cache link in the google results. :cool:
 
Coming from a backgound of nuclear power, being an ex nuclear reactor operator, every time I see anything on nuclear physics or reactors on wiki...I have to laugh at how much incorrect information is out there. Of course, being rusty, I have no desire to correct the world and I am sure there are many others with the same experiences I have on it. In short, I would not trust wiki for anything highly technical.

No loss.

Again, they often cite sources, and if there are no sources cited it will generally say "citation needed" next to it. Are you saying the cited sources are also wrong? If so, that's not really Wikipedia's fault.
 
Wikipedia is worthless if:

You want information about people, society, politics, religion, history, etc. Articles for these subjects are so loaded with bias and propaganda that the information can't be trusted.

The same could be said of ANY written source of information out there. Like someone else said above, it's a wash.
 
The sad thing is that most people don't realize that the page loads and then an overlay loads on top... If you hit escape before the overlay loads you can read the pages on Wikipedia.

If you read the stuff that comes up after the splash it actually tells you in there that it's javascript and can be turned off by disabling javascript. (or naturally just using noscript like everyone already should)

I find the quote to be pretty funny, oh well if it's some RIAA dude.

Wiki is still a fantastic place to start research, though. I never ended there, but it's awesome to throw in a term and then get a bunch of places to start. If you are going to one source for anything you're bound to fail anyhow so it's nice to have something quick to get things going.(other than [H])
 
I don't know about you guys but the professors i had would laugh at me and fail me for using wiki for a cited source.

Wikipedia is just a collection of cited articles. You think the whole "Don't cite Wikipedia" even matters? It doesn't. Any kid these days is likely simply using Wikipedia, taking the sources Wikipedia cites, and using those as his sources. Wow, avoiding the "Don't use Wikipedia as a source" rule, that was a tough one!
 
Back
Top