23 replies to this topic

[Hawkin]

Sundew, on 08 January 2013 - 12:18 AM, said:

Would that be the mainstream media or the politicians?

Agree. Politicians and the media like to fabricate and mislead. That's why it's so hard for me to vote or watch much news.

[unknownsoldier]

there's a game i played called medieval total war and in the Campaign Portal go to war with the Maratha Empire its incredible how many people have been fooled.

[Idano]

the L, on 07 January 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Lets invent new law, about intenional spreading of lies, misleading people, deciving. Find him trough IP and punish him.

Are you lying?

[Orcseeker]

unknownsoldier, on 08 January 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

there's a game i played called medieval total war and in the Campaign Portal go to war with the Maratha Empire its incredible how many people have been fooled.

I think you got the games mixed up Empire total war and you're quite right. Time to roll out an update.

[Order66]

What do you want to do, completely eliminate all user input? Let a couple of whitewashed jerks decide for everyone else what articles should be included and who gets to edit them? Wow, that will make for an exciting site. It will be like the set of print encyclopedias collecting dust on the shelf, no interactivity, look but don't touch.

Edited by Order66, 15 January 2013 - 01:54 PM.

[DieChecker]

Order66, on 15 January 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

What do you want to do, completely eliminate all user input? Let a couple of whitewashed jerks decide for everyone else what articles should be included and who gets to edit them? Wow, that will make for an exciting site. It will be like the set of print encyclopedias collecting dust on the shelf, no interactivity, look but don't touch.

Yeah, I agree. Why ruin millions of useful inputs for the reason of a handful of rotten ones.

[ali smack]

people shouldn't take wikipedia for granted because it's quite rubbish

[MichaelW]

DieChecker, on 08 January 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

I would much rather go to Wikipedia, which has basically neutrally oriented Fact Checkers, rather then simply trust in any of the millions of politically... religiously... socially... racially... oriented/slanted independent sites that don't site their information at all.

Fully agree with this. The vast majority of "independent" sites on the web are there to promote agendas of individual people and groups........more often than not using sources that are as equally biased as any of the content on sites. Infowars is a good example of this.

Also, the proper spelling is "cite".

[Queen in the North]

Love this! Can't believe it even got a badge of honour.

It reminds me of something my friend's father, who is a secondary school English teacher and his colleague did, set their class a research task overnight (after lessons about research and using good sources) about a fairly obscure historical figure. On that evening, they changed the date of birth on the Wikipedia page for this figure, just for the day. Lo and behold, 90%+ of the class came into school the next day with the incorrect date of birth. Sigh.

I do think Wikipedia is a useful tool however. While I know it is not suitable to be used as a reference for most things, when I am faced with research on something complicated that I know little about, Wikipedia is often very good at explaining it, and provides sources which can then be checked out in turn.