At this point, I'd like to thank Brooke and Steve for responding to my comments.
Steve, I hope you can appreciate the comments I made about how when people begin to agree, they stop contributing. If your posts feel ignored as you've often stated, please take into consideration. Even when you disagree with me, I still find your comments refreshing. I agree that people should comment where they feel they have something to say but I think that, in order to move a conversation forward, it's important to include concessions in responses. (e.g. the way i started off this paragraph) When members simply jump onto the first thing they disagree with, discussions tend to spiral down into bickering. Additionally, straw man arguments should be avoided... On Dec 28, 2007 2:41 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Oh, give me a break, seriously....someone question's Wikipedia, which > Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they > are, in your opinion, wackos.....give me a break.... > > Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia.... > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps I should have said "people that distrust the Wikipedia > model." > > Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an > > important part of anything you read online. The threshold for > > inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much > easier. > > Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken > with > > a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in the > > same way anything you read should be scrutinized. > > > > Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been > > found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your > > distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's > > policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth. > > > > Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what > scientific > > journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of > > certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant > > viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original > > research and synthesis of published material. This would > necessarily > > lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it > > less trustworthy. > > > > It's important to understand something before discrediting it. > > However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others > that > > universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They > > are: > > - creationists > > - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories > > - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution > > - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and > movies > > like "What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole." > > > > ...etc > > > > On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it > reveals a lot. > > > > > > It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than > one > > > article > > > and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some > cases, > > > attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those > accuracies is shut > > > down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with > > > irrefutable > > > scientific proof in hand. > > > > > > Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting > anything > > > else. > > > > > > > > > Jake Ludington > > > > > > http://www.jakeludington.com > > > > > > > > > >
