Why not to trust Wikipedia [Archive] - Beastie Boys Message Board

sam i am

12-14-2005, 04:13 PM

See attached :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20051214/bs_bw/tc20051214441708

Even the operator of the site says not to quote them.

Hopefully, for now, this puts to rest the whole "wikipedia is just as good as other sources" controversy that has occasionally erupted around here.

Funkaloyd

12-14-2005, 05:55 PM

He says that students and researchers shouldn't cite Wikipedia. They shouldn't use news articles, or 99.9% of the Internet, either.

Can you imagine how desolate this forum would be if we could only quote from peer-reviewed literature?

sam i am

12-14-2005, 05:57 PM

Funkaloyd

12-15-2005, 05:33 AM

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

roosta

12-15-2005, 06:48 AM

i would never quote/reference wikipedia, but i use it alot to get a grasp on things, or for starting off research on a topic.

then i edit them and fill them full of lies!

Ali

12-15-2005, 07:32 AM

synch

12-15-2005, 07:48 AM

How about using wikipedia the same way you'd use any other form of information, by using common sense.

sam i am

12-15-2005, 11:14 AM

How about using wikipedia the same way you'd use any other form of information, by using common sense.

The real problem becomes what you define as "common sense."

Traditionally, in the US, common sense said that hard work and initiative led to success and prosperity for you and your family, and, by extension, for your community and nation. Common sense said that you should be patriotic and respect your elders and elected leaders. Common sense said that values and morals were to be held in high esteem. Common sense said the USA was a Judeo-Christian nation. Common sense said that America was the greatest country on the Earth and was respected and held in high esteem worldwide.

According to most on this message board, common sense has gone out the window.

synch

12-15-2005, 11:57 AM

That definition of common sense that isn't even on the same planet as I am on.

Schmeltz

12-15-2005, 12:29 PM

Common sense said that America was the greatest country on the Earth and was respected and held in high esteem worldwide.

I guess it's true when they say that common sense ain't all that common.

Seriously, aren't you embarrassed to post this drivel sometimes?

synch

12-15-2005, 12:32 PM

I might be mistaking but he was just saying that "common sense" can mean many things. That isn't his opinion, I think. I hope.

sam i am

12-15-2005, 01:04 PM

I might be mistaking but he was just saying that "common sense" can mean many things. That isn't his opinion, I think. I hope.

Yes.

Notice I said "WAS held in high esteem?"

sam i am

12-15-2005, 01:05 PM

That definition of common sense that isn't even on the same planet as I am on.

Common sense for those in their 30's and older is obviously quite different than for those in their 20's and under.

synch

12-15-2005, 02:09 PM

I don't think age has much to do with it.

Echewta

12-15-2005, 02:29 PM

According to most on this message board, common sense has gone out the window.

When you have the kind of politicians we have running the U.S. government, I would have to agree.

DroppinScience

12-15-2005, 02:32 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html

Point. Counterpoint.

catatonic

12-15-2005, 04:17 PM

I liked the part where the Encyclopedia was proclaimed to work for free. But it takes effectiveness to write articles. Hmm... I wonder what wiki smells like.

QueenAdrock

12-15-2005, 04:47 PM

It gets me A's at an accredited university, so I'll still use it. If I don't remember something from a lecture, it gives it to me and I make off like a bandit.

sam i am

12-15-2005, 06:53 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html

Point. Counterpoint.

That's why encyclopedias ALSO shouldn't be used to buttress points or for anything more than cursory source information.

synch

12-15-2005, 07:50 PM

So ehm, what's your idea of an infallable, bonafide source of information? Foxnews? CNN? Experience? The bible? Your mum?

zorra_chiflada

12-15-2005, 07:52 PM

So ehm, what's your idea of an infallable, bonafide source of information? Foxnews? CNN? Experience? The bible? Your mum?

duh! god tells him!

synch

12-15-2005, 07:57 PM

And god wrote the bible, everybody knows that.

sam i am

12-15-2005, 08:28 PM

Hope you two had fun with your useless little twaddle.

Unimpeachable sources are generally peer reviewed by experts in the field. Wiki and encyclopedias are not.

Just for fun : the Bible HAS been peer reviewed by archaeological evidence.

QueenAdrock

12-15-2005, 08:29 PM

Yeah and a lot of the evidence points to the dates being wrong.

sam i am

12-15-2005, 08:32 PM

Yeah and a lot of the evidence points to the dates being wrong.

Are their all kinds of specific dates in your version of the Bible? Who wrote it?

QueenAdrock

12-15-2005, 08:34 PM

No, just stuff like the mention of horses when it had not been domesticated at the time, mention of the spice trade in the Queen of Sheba story when the trade wasn't happening at that time, etc.

Not sure what version it's from because I don't have a copy.

Documad

12-15-2005, 08:35 PM

It gets me A's at an accredited university, so I'll still use it. If I don't remember something from a lecture, it gives it to me and I make off like a bandit.
This scares me.

I don't think people need any support for an argument on a message board, and I would have a problem with virtually any source cited anyways. I'm more interested in opinions than so-called "truth" when discussing issues with friends anyhow.

But if I was going to debate or write a paper, I would never rely on wiwipedia, an encyclopaedia, a dictionary, Reader's Digest, etc. It's a good place to start when you're completely clueless, but you have to do a whole lot more.

(I once got an A on a creative writing project based on a joke I read in Ms. Magazine, so who am I to throw stones?)

QueenAdrock

12-15-2005, 08:38 PM

How does it scare you? I said that if I don't remember something from a lecture, it'll jog my memory. :confused:

Documad

12-15-2005, 08:49 PM

How does it scare you? I said that if I don't remember something from a lecture, it'll jog my memory. :confused:
I thought you were using it as background for writing history papers. I guess I misunderstood.

P.S. The Bible. Ha ha ha. Shows what happens when you cobble together stuff written by loads of people over a long time with an everchanging agenda and it gets edited and edited. It's like that telephone game. :p

QueenAdrock

12-15-2005, 08:51 PM

Nooooo, never for a background. Unless I truly have no idea, in which case I'll go to several sources to make sure that it's valid.

I use scholarly articles and books because I'm old-fashioned and don't use the internets. (y)

Documad

12-15-2005, 08:52 PM

Thanks QA. I can sleep tonight. :)

sam i am

12-15-2005, 09:01 PM

P.S. The Bible. Ha ha ha. Shows what happens when you cobble together stuff written by loads of people over a long time with an everchanging agenda and it gets edited and edited. It's like that telephone game. :p

Are you not familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Funkaloyd

12-15-2005, 09:14 PM

Sam, did God create humans or other animals first?

the Bible HAS been peer reviewed by archaeological evidence.
I asked for this evidence in another thread.

Documad

12-15-2005, 09:15 PM

Are you not familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Yes. Christian history is a huge interest of mine.

sam i am

12-15-2005, 09:16 PM

I asked for this evidence in another thread.

You didn't agree to my deal.

If you do, say so explicitly. If not, bugger off.

sam i am

12-15-2005, 09:17 PM

Sam, did God create humans or other animals first?

How do I know? I wasn't there.

I DO believe in evolution and the history of the Universe being more than 5000 years old, if that's what you're trying to target here.

Funkaloyd

12-15-2005, 09:26 PM

sam i am

12-15-2005, 09:31 PM

No, I was targeting the consistency of the Bible. I am glad to hear that you don't believe all of the Bible, though.

By deal, you mean that I should "take what is offered and only comment on what is offered and any oppositional evidence [I] have in return"? Ok. Do I ever do anything else when discussing religion?

I don't know. I've been bitten enough times, and am paranoid enough being the only reasonable, educated conservative on here who doesn't get flamed ALL the time, that I feel I have to hedge my bets before I stick my neck out too far.

OK.

It's late tonight, and I've got kids to put to bed and leaving for a trip tomorrow.

Monday I'll post what I got and we can discuss further.

Fair enough?

sam i am

12-15-2005, 09:31 PM

Are you not familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls?

^^^^

Let's start there, Funkaloyd.

Documad

12-15-2005, 10:05 PM

Funkaloyd, if you want to bone up for your talk, you can consult wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls). ;)

Funkaloyd

12-16-2005, 03:00 AM

I think that it would be helpful to know how exactly you think that things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and extra-Biblical evidences support the Bible. Do they prove that God created the Universe in six days, and that Jesus was (/is) 33.333333333% of God (in other words, do they support the Bible's religious claims)?

All that the Dead Sea Scrolls show is that, in the past two millennia, some parts of the Bible haven't changed as much as some have suspected over the years. They alone don't prove that the Bible itself is religiously or historically accurate, or that the Bible isn't "cobble[d] together stuff written by loads of people over a long time with an everchanging agenda". See the documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis) hypothesis (http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=%22documentary+hypothesis%22+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search&meta=), for example. That's also what I was getting at when I asked whether humans or other animals came first; Genesis 1 & 2 very obviously contradict each other on that issue.

Reply in your own time. I hope that you have a great trip.

synch

12-16-2005, 08:28 AM

Hope you two had fun with your useless little twaddle.

Unimpeachable sources are generally peer reviewed by experts in the field. Wiki and encyclopedias are not.Mine wasn't a rhetorical question, I was genuinly interested in knowing what kind of source you'd consider valid for a discussion, particularly for a discussion in the political forum of a band website.

EN[i]GMA

12-16-2005, 05:19 PM

I felt this needed to be posted: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic

Schmeltz

12-17-2005, 12:15 PM

Just for fun : the Bible HAS been peer reviewed by archaeological evidence.

No, no it emphatically has not. Archaeological data has in fact done quite the opposite, painting a historical picture of the Ancient Near East utterly different from anything to be found in the Bible. There is no evidence for the patriarchy, the Exodus, or a Jewish kingdom on the scale of that described in the time period alleged, let alone silly myths like the Garden of Eden, the Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the crossing of the Red Sea. These events are made up.

These facts have been conclusively proven time and time again. There really isn't any credible evidence to be presented in support of a contrary model. Let it go.

synch

12-17-2005, 12:43 PM

GMA']I felt this needed to be posted: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic
:D

For anyone seeing it after today, it's about this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051216h.jpg) comic.

Funkaloyd

12-17-2005, 06:09 PM

There really isn't any credible evidence to be presented in support of a contrary model.
Sometimes I find it fun to check out the other evidence, though. Seen this (http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/)? I find it fascinating, in its own way.

yeahwho

12-17-2005, 08:16 PM

Funkaloyd, if you want to bone up for your talk, you can consult wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls). ;)

Best Post of the Week.

How can I trust a thread that goes from reference reliability to dead sea scrolls?

All about the Bible (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Bible)

Documad

12-18-2005, 12:38 AM

I spent way too long at a bookstore today in the religion section reading dust jackets and getting shoved around by intense Christmas shoppers. They put the rational books on Christian history amongst a lot of very scary stuff. This link is particularly hilarious tonight.

All about the Bible (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Bible)

(I ended up only buying a gag gift)