Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,352 Year: 3,609/9,624 Month: 480/974 Week: 93/276 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

Wikipedia - A general discussion of its validity

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
Author Topic:   Wikipedia - A general discussion of its validity
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

nator Posts Only
Message 31 of 40 (443630)
12-26-2007 7:39 AM 		Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 10:54 AM

Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
quote:
Are you denying the bias which I've already cited in the link which Moose provided?
​
On the whole, I think that Wikipedia science articles are biased in favor of reality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied
  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5927 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

sidelined Posts Only
Message 32 of 40 (443642)
12-26-2007 8:34 AM 		Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 10:58 AM

Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
Buzsaw
​
I do use Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia. Both have good things to contribute to knowledge.
​
So what are your criteria for deciding on one or the other? Personal preference? Is that wise when looking up info in the first place since the reason to use the sources is to gain knowledge you do not currently have?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

jar Posts Only
Message 33 of 40 (443650)
12-26-2007 9:07 AM 		Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 10:54 AM

Undestanding evidence
Your link provided no supporting evidence Buz, it was just more folk whining without providing any support.
​
Is there a pattern there?
​
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied
  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22473
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7

Percy Posts Only
Message 34 of 40 (443661)
12-26-2007 10:43 AM 		Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 10:54 AM

Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia entries for a number of topics. There's an obvious bias in favor of reality and science:
​
Wikipedia excerpts writes:
​
ESPThe existence of ESP abilities is highly controversial, and no scientifically conclusive demonstrations of the existence of ESP have been given.
​
CreationismBoth creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.
​
Water DiviningDowsing is widely practiced despite a lack of scientific evidence for its efficacy.
​
Paluxy RiverHowever, these anachronistic human footprints were shown to be either mistaken interpretation and even some outright fakes.
​
HomeopathyThe ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.
​
Runaway SubductionCatastrophic plate tectonics lacks a plausible mechanism. Particularly, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.
​
Magnet TherapyMagnetotherapy is generally considered pseudoscientific by the mainstream scientific community.
​
Flood GeologyHowever, creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence have routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally by the scientific community and as such flood geology is considered pseudoscience.
​
Aroma TherapyAromatherapy tends to be regarded as a complementary modality at best and a pseudoscientific fraud at worst.
​
Clearly those promoting anti-scientific ideas will find little support at Wikipedia.
​
--Percy
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied
  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003

Cold Foreign Object Posts Only
Message 35 of 40 (443691)
12-26-2007 12:32 PM 		Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
12-21-2005 4:04 PM

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. It is a public talk box. Anyone with a computer can contribute. The main reason it is not a legitimate source is because "article" authorship is anonymous, unprofessional and largely unreferenced. For all we know Britney Spears could have written articles on evolution and radio dating.
​
Much of their biographies of persons are pure and total slander or libel, especially persons who are thought to be antievolution and pro-Christian. We know Atheists and evolutionists run Wikipedia so this is expected.
​
For those who think the world of Wikipedia despite the above facts, here is a good taste of how bad this tabloid site is:
​
Eddie Nash - Wikipedia
​
According to John C. Holmes' second wife Laurie (aka Misty Dawn): "He (Eddie Nash) was an awful man... John told me he used to leave the bathrooms without toilet paper, then offer the young women cocaine if they'd lick his ass clean."
​
Nina Hartley - Wikipedia
​
Best Specialty Tape - BDSM for Nina Hartley's Private Sessions 13 (2005)
Best Specialty Tape - Spanking for Nina Hartley's Guide To Spanking (2005)
Best Supporting Actress - Video for The Last X-Rated Movie (1991)
Best Couples Sex Scene Film for Amanda By Night II (1987)
Best Couples Sex Scene - Video for Sensual Escape (1989)
Best Supporting Actress - Film for Portrait of an Affair (1989)
Best Actress - Video for Debbie Duz Dishes (1987)
​
Wikipedia is a tabloid representing the minds of ordinary persons, wholly unprofessional and anti-scholarly. I refuse to show examples of slander and libel of particular persons.
​
Ray
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-21-2005 4:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 12:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 37 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 12:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 10:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member

Chiroptera Posts Only
Message 36 of 40 (443692)
12-26-2007 12:36 PM 		Reply to: Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 12:32 PM

Good point. The existence of articles about gangsters and porn stars proves the whole site is worthless, especially the science articles.
​
As usual, I am speechless by your intellectual acumen. Must be the guidence of the Holy Spirit thing.
​
"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 12:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 1:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied
  
CK
Member (Idle past 4146 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004

CK Posts Only
Message 37 of 40 (443693)
12-26-2007 12:50 PM 		Reply to: Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 12:32 PM

What's incorrect with the Nina Hartley listing? does it not match your records?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 12:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
  
CK
Member (Idle past 4146 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004

CK Posts Only
Message 38 of 40 (443696)
12-26-2007 1:00 PM 		Reply to: Message 36 by Chiroptera
12-26-2007 12:36 PM

Wikipedia is a starting point not an endpoint, and as a primer and resource for sciences it's pretty good - you can see if any articles have any major problems by checking the edit history and by reading the talkpages.
​
Conversapedia is so goddam awful, it's not worth discussing in any serious way - compare the wikipedia article about the Moon to that of Conservapedia:
​
Moon - Wikipedia
​
http://www.conservapedia.com/Moon
​
The conservapedia doesn't even tell you anything about the moon, just why it's evidence of god!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 12:36 PM Chiroptera has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2007 9:59 PM CK has not replied
  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007

bluescat48 Posts Only
Message 39 of 40 (443826)
12-26-2007 9:59 PM 		Reply to: Message 38 by CK
12-26-2007 1:00 PM

I agree
​
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 1:00 PM CK has not replied
  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5927 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

sidelined Posts Only
Message 40 of 40 (443828)
12-26-2007 10:22 PM 		Reply to: Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 12:32 PM

Cold Foreign
Object
​
Much of their biographies of persons are pure and total slander or libel, especially persons who are thought to be antievolution and pro-Christian.
​
I was not aware that Eddie Nash and Nina Hartley were Pro-Christian. I can see how such blasphemy would be unsettling.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 12:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Prev123
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024