[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
They missed the biggest common misconception. That Wikipedia is not something great.[/quote]
I agree.
I like how many people parrot the idea that wikipedia is unreliable. I would like to say to most of them, “Y’know what? It is for what you’re doing”…like if they’re researching X-Men or My Little Pony shit.[/quote]
My lectures always tell us not to use wiki and if we do we better read the reference they provide.
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
They missed the biggest common misconception. That Wikipedia is not something great.[/quote]
I agree.
I like how many people parrot the idea that wikipedia is unreliable. I would like to say to most of them, “Y’know what? It is for what you’re doing”…like if they’re researching X-Men or My Little Pony shit.[/quote]
My lectures always tell us not to use wiki and if we do we better read the reference they provide.[/quote]
That’s OK if you’re a professional. I meant the people that say “wiki is unreliable!” because they want to look like they’re professional, meanwhile the first guy referenced wiki about Captain Kirk’s first posting on a starship or some shit.
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
They missed the biggest common misconception. That Wikipedia is not something great.[/quote]
I agree.
I like how many people parrot the idea that wikipedia is unreliable. I would like to say to most of them, “Y’know what? It is for what you’re doing”…like if they’re researching X-Men or My Little Pony shit.[/quote]
My lectures always tell us not to use wiki and if we do we better read the reference they provide.[/quote]
That’s OK if you’re a professional. I meant the people that say “wiki is unreliable!” because they want to look like they’re professional, meanwhile the first guy referenced wiki about Captain Kirk’s first posting on a starship or some shit.
[/quote]
Everyone uses wiki. Even scientists.
That being said clearly they are wrong in the assertion that its a myth that men think about sex every 7 seconds. 
So basically, most of the useless shit I thought I knew, is in fact horseshit.
Fantastic!
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
They missed the biggest common misconception. That Wikipedia is not something great.[/quote]
I agree.
I like how many people parrot the idea that wikipedia is unreliable. I would like to say to most of them, “Y’know what? It is for what you’re doing”…like if they’re researching X-Men or My Little Pony shit.[/quote]
My lectures always tell us not to use wiki and if we do we better read the reference they provide.[/quote]
That’s OK if you’re a professional. I meant the people that say “wiki is unreliable!” because they want to look like they’re professional, meanwhile the first guy referenced wiki about Captain Kirk’s first posting on a starship or some shit.
[/quote]
I find that wiki is always at its most “unreliable” immediately after you have used it to prove someone wrong in some trivial argument or another.
I use wiki ALL THE TIME at work. It is acceptable as long as it’s right. The key is knowing when it’s full of shit. Most of the technical stuff that I’ve found on there is pretty accurate.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I use wiki ALL THE TIME at work. It is acceptable as long as it’s right. The key is knowing when it’s full of shit. Most of the technical stuff that I’ve found on there is pretty accurate.[/quote]
But does Wiki even lift? Why should someone listen to Wiki, just because it’s right? 
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I use wiki ALL THE TIME at work. It is acceptable as long as it’s right. The key is knowing when it’s full of shit. Most of the technical stuff that I’ve found on there is pretty accurate.[/quote]
Agreed. If you search through some of the references provided you can clearly tell which information is suspect and which isn’t. I find that most of the historical shit on there tends to be pretty accurate, although sometimes it’s too vague or broad.
In fact, my rule of thumb is basically that any opinions stated on that site should be doublechecked via the references. If you go to wikipedia thinking that you’re going to get all the info you need about the Emancipation Proclamation or something like that then you’re fucked. But if you use it as a starting point and then explore the references provided you should be just fine.
Actually, I recommend that my students use wikipedia as a starting point for certain historical issues/episodes if they know absolutely nothing about the subject matter. It’s good enough and usually accurate enough to provide quality background information for a student who has no clue what the hell happened at Pearl Harbor or something like that.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I use wiki ALL THE TIME at work. It is acceptable as long as it’s right. The key is knowing when it’s full of shit. Most of the technical stuff that I’ve found on there is pretty accurate.[/quote]
Agreed. If you search through some of the references provided you can clearly tell which information is suspect and which isn’t. I find that most of the historical shit on there tends to be pretty accurate, although sometimes it’s too vague or broad.
In fact, my rule of thumb is basically that any opinions stated on that site should be doublechecked via the references. If you go to wikipedia thinking that you’re going to get all the info you need about the Emancipation Proclamation or something like that then you’re fucked. But if you use it as a starting point and then explore the references provided you should be just fine.
Actually, I recommend that my students use wikipedia as a starting point for certain historical issues/episodes if they know absolutely nothing about the subject matter. It’s good enough and usually accurate enough to provide quality background information for a student who has no clue what the hell happened at Pearl Harbor or something like that.[/quote]
So how accurate is this?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I use wiki ALL THE TIME at work. It is acceptable as long as it’s right. The key is knowing when it’s full of shit. Most of the technical stuff that I’ve found on there is pretty accurate.[/quote]
Agreed. If you search through some of the references provided you can clearly tell which information is suspect and which isn’t. I find that most of the historical shit on there tends to be pretty accurate, although sometimes it’s too vague or broad.
In fact, my rule of thumb is basically that any opinions stated on that site should be doublechecked via the references. If you go to wikipedia thinking that you’re going to get all the info you need about the Emancipation Proclamation or something like that then you’re fucked. But if you use it as a starting point and then explore the references provided you should be just fine.
Actually, I recommend that my students use wikipedia as a starting point for certain historical issues/episodes if they know absolutely nothing about the subject matter. It’s good enough and usually accurate enough to provide quality background information for a student who has no clue what the hell happened at Pearl Harbor or something like that.[/quote]
So how accurate is this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper[/quote]
More accurate than I care to admit. Yeah, I lost a lot of the cash.
I look for grammar, spelling, and structure clues to ascertain credibility from Wiki. Oftentimes an article will start off sounding credible, then some amateurish passage makes me think a teenager posted the article, and I immediately become suspect of its content.
What kind of crazy bullshit is THIS? Everyone knows that Einstein has been the guiding light and major inspiration of dull-witted persons since time out of mind!
wiki has this to say about “me”
“John Nada, the main character from John Carpenter’s film They Live, portrayed by Roddy Piper”
Y’see…I didn’t know till now that his first name was John. Yet i wonder where they got that from.
[quote]Nards wrote:
wiki has this to say about “me”
“John Nada, the main character from John Carpenter’s film They Live, portrayed by Roddy Piper”
Y’see…I didn’t know till now that his first name was John. Yet i wonder where they got that from.[/quote]
This link says John too, but also states that his name is George Nada in the story the movie was based on.
I like that short story too. I posted here on T Nation somewhere once.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
wiki has this to say about “me”
“John Nada, the main character from John Carpenter’s film They Live, portrayed by Roddy Piper”
Y’see…I didn’t know till now that his first name was John. Yet i wonder where they got that from.[/quote]
This link says John too, but also states that his name is George Nada in the story the movie was based on.
Here’s the story:
http://themunkyreport.blogspot.com/2007/01/eight-oclock-in-morning-by-ray-nelson.html
[quote]Nards wrote:
I like that short story too. I posted here on T Nation somewhere once.[/quote]
I just read it. Pretty good, although I missed the bubble gum line.
That was added later as a merchandising tie-in.
Ha…found this gem while searching for pics of They Live bubblegum.
Nards, have you ever walked into a bank in Taiwan and said:
“I have come here to chew bin lang and kick ass. And I’m all out of bin lang.”