Wikipedia BAD!!

naisho said:
That's the point I think, if you don't have a VPN tunnel connection (virtual private network to the school) then aside from going on campus, you're out of luck on getting immediate info. Expect to spend loads of time digging around. You then have to spend a good deal of time figuring out where to get info, as there aren't many sites that contain -everything-. The schools have the connections with the best sites, which sadly require $. So then you're just left to pick up the scrap stuff that's around.
Click to expand...

Here's a starting point....don't use .com sites for reliable and valid research.
 
jillio said:
Remember having to pull stuff up on micro fiche? God, I hated that!
Click to expand...

i remember that. (in my case though, i had to have a sighted person read me the information. interestingly enough, that wasn't too long ago. it was back in my freshman year of college in 1989-1990.)
 
jillio said:
Here's a starting point....don't use .com sites for reliable and valid research.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they say you should use .gov or .edu, and maybe .org for reliable/valid research...

I always use Wiki to point me in the right direction though.
 
First of all, WELCOME BACK, Jillo :hug:

Unfortunlately sadly, I have to admit that most of you including Jiro are right about English Wikipedia. I was shock when I read both German and English wikipedia over Zionisum to make sure my suspect is correct or not before answer Foxrac's question in my another thread with accurate link today that there're a lot of censor in English Wikipedia.

I search Zionisum in English Wikipedia and saw world languages by coincidence and thought about Jiro's thread so I compared the history over Zion and shock to know that the history about Ziron in German is deeper everything from beginning than English Wikipedia... :shock: I understand now why you most are against wikipedia... From now, I will read German first then English Wikipedia.

I can see there're A LOT of censor in English wikipedia... Let me show you the example:

English Wikipedia...

Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word "Zionism" itself is derived from the word Zion (Hebrew: ציון, Tzi-yon‎). This name originally referred to Mount Zion, a mountain near Jerusalem, and to the Fortress of Zion on it. Later, under King David, the term "Zion" became a synecdoche referring to the entire city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. In many Biblical verses, the Israelites were called the people, sons or daughters of Zion.

German Wikipedia

Zionismus – Wikipedia


Der Ausdruck „Zionismus“ bezieht sich auf den „Berg Zion“ (Har Zion) im Südosten Jerusalems, auf dem Salomo um 800 v. Chr. den ersten Tempel erbauen ließ.

Translation

The word "Zionism" refer to the "mountain Zion" (Har Zion) in southeast of Jerusalem, where the Solomon as the builder of the first temple around 800 v. Christ.

See the difference?

Jillio, I beleive you can read German, then you can see the difference between German and English Wikipedia.

ADers, I am sure that you will reconize the difference when you read both German and English Wikipedia because of the word of Iersal, year, etc.

 
well actually - German wiki would have its info wording differently than English wiki on certain issues that are negative to German. For example - Holocaust and Hitler. (i'm just assuming since I can't read german).

It's simply better if you read info from something like Britannica. I really don't like to read the source that is easily editable by anybody.
 
omegaman said:
Yeah, they say you should use .gov or .edu, and maybe .org for reliable/valid research...

I always use Wiki to point me in the right direction though.
Click to expand...

Wiki is okay, if you are using it to access citations. However, those citations are the articles that should be accessed, read, and used for support of your point.And you are correct about the sites.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Unfortunlately sadly, I have to admit that most of you including Jiro are right about English Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Yes definitely. As a multilingual person I read Wiki entries in several languages and always notice variation in detail and depth. Some of them also have cultural bias in them, as you stated. I actually decide which language look something up in depending on what it is. For example if I'm looking up an American T.V. show, I'll look it up in English, but if I'm looking up a Russian T.V. show, I'll look it up in Russian.
 
jillio said:
Wiki is okay, if you are using it to access citations. However, those citations are the articles that should be accessed, read, and used for support of your point.And you are correct about the sites.
Click to expand...

it's important that wiki show reference that show the actual source. Without it, then wiki would be full of crap.... probably beyond!
 
PowerON said:
it's important that wiki show reference that show the actual source. Without it, then wiki would be full of crap.... probably beyond!
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. It is important that they show references, but you also need to keep in mind that those references have been interpreted by the person doing the posting. You have no way of knowing if this person has the education or the credentials to do so. That is why it is important to use the reference list to access the research yourself.
 
jillio said:
Well, yes and no. It is important that they show references, but you also need to keep in mind that those references have been interpreted by the person doing the posting. You have no way of knowing if this person has the education or the credentials to do so. That is why it is important to use the reference list to access the research yourself.
Click to expand...

it come with link or actual book, and it's there, like 90%. Wiki isn't that bad.
 
PowerON said:
it come with link or actual book, and it's there, like 90%. Wiki isn't that bad.
Click to expand...

but you have to read it to understand the author's ACTUAL intention with the certain comment picked by wikipedia. Other people conveniently choose that one line for their agenda when it's actually opposite of author's actual intention.
 
PowerON said:
it come with link or actual book, and it's there, like 90%. Wiki isn't that bad.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Wiki is that bad if you have any interest at all in accurracy.
 
Jiro said:
but you have to read it to understand the author's ACTUAL intention with the certain comment picked by wikipedia. Other people conveniently choose that one line for their agenda when it's actually opposite of author's actual intention.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
PowerON said:
it come with link or actual book, and it's there, like 90%. Wiki isn't that bad.
Click to expand...

the resources are there, but they are inaccurate due to the fact that *anyone* can post information on wiki -- be it a layperson or professional.
 
imdeafsowhat said:
Wiki should be a forum. Not a site to research and adjust.
Click to expand...

You should go there and raise'em some hell to fire everybody up.
Edit the lemonade page to include sulfuric acid base to spike it up for a blast drink and poof out.
 
Back
Top