[WikiEN-l] a site that falls on its face when tested
I'd say it is a "site that falls on its face when tested". I ran several searches in it for minor articles in Wikipedia, in some cases the ads that came up were relevant but there was no relevant information. Then I tried their Easter Island article, which in my view gives more info than we do on some of the fringe theories "The stones were moved from quarry to ahu using ancient secrets known to the Lemurians, perhaps involving levitation or the secret for liquifying stone." And omits some of the info we have as to how archaeologists believe the statues were carved. WereSpielChequers > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:37:29 -0500 > From: "kgnp...@gmail.com" > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia.com > To: "English Wikipedia" > Message-ID: <4a6a61dc.c5c2f10a.6d9e.5...@mx.google.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I think that I was taught in school to never use any encyclopedia as a > reference work, and that others should learn the same instead > > -- Sent from my Palm Pre > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > About us > http://www.encyclopedia.com/about.aspx > "Other Web sites that allow anyone to rewrite reference entries can be > fun. But when you need credible information from reliable sources you > can cite, Encyclopedia.com (www.encyclopedia.com) is the place to go. " > > "Encyclopedia.com is owned and operated by HighBeam Research. " > > What do others think. Is this site merely another fluffy, we're better > than you, site that falls on its face when tested? > > Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] a site that falls on its face when tested
WereSpielChequers wrote: > I'd say it is a "site that falls on its face when tested". I ran several > searches in it for minor articles in Wikipedia, in some cases the ads that > came up were relevant but there was no relevant information. Then I tried > their Easter Island article, which in my view gives more info than we do on > some of the fringe theories "The stones were moved from quarry to ahu using > ancient secrets known to the Lemurians, perhaps involving levitation or the > secret for liquifying stone." And omits some of the info we have as to how > archaeologists believe the statues were carved. > Well, just to be fair, most of the archaelogists theories have nearly zero corroborating evidence in support, merely being "OR" by people supposedly better positioned to argue the case. That is to say archeologists "beliefs" are supported by very scant genuine evidence, just by "educated" hunches, which should'nt be the the thing that wikipedia reifies any more than tinfoil hattery. The standard on reporting should be the widespreadedness of theories, precisely because the most widespread theories that are based on fallacious premises should have as reasonable and authoritative rebuttal as possible at a website as reliable as possible (in some cases that would be Wikipedia). Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
