[hurley_108]

stemmer stemmer:

Now read the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Background

In the background section I put "Proculation"

See any Dolt can post something to the Wiki. It doesn't make it factual....

And by the way when you pony up to the keyboard to post publicly on the internet it is best to do so sober.

And 44 minutes later it was changed back. So yea, any dolt can vandalize a Wikipedia page for petty reasons, but someone's gonna fix it. But that's all beside the point. You're committing another fallacious argument by attacking that aspect of Wikipedia. And yet another with that quip about sobriety. See if you can figure out what kind they are.

[stemmer]

The credibility of WIKI and most web pages on the internet is suspect. That is my point...

I can find a link to validate just about any ludicrous claim....

YES the internet is a tremendous resource, just be cautious when referencing it as a source... Do not rely soley on information you've gleened from the net as the basis for your conclusion.

[DrCaleb]

stemmer stemmer:

The credibility of WIKI and most web pages on the internet is suspect. That is my point...

I can find a link to validate just about any ludicrous claim....

YES the internet is a tremendous resource, just be cautious when referencing it as a source... Do not rely soley on information you've gleened from the net as the basis for your conclusion.

Exactly. If you like, I can post the link to the Wikipedia article that shows where Wiki gets facts right and the Encyclopedia Britannica gets them wrong. And where big newspapers get things wrong, because Wiki gets them wrong, and the papers use Wiki as their ONLY source.

It's a good starting place, and ignoring it as a source makes people look silly.

[stemmer]

Internet links and WIKI as a source would never stand up in a court of law... However a book or paper published by a respectable author or researcher most certainly would be given consideration...

[DrCaleb]

stemmer stemmer:

Internet links and WIKI as a source would never stand up in a court of law...

We aren't in a court of law.

stemmer stemmer:

However a book or paper published by a respectable author or researcher most certainly would be given consideration...

And if the respectable author wrote the Wiki article based on his own research? That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Sometimes the articles are written and peer reviewed by the best in their field.

Encyclopedias often don't do that.

[stemmer]

WIKI is not accepted into a court of law.... BECAUSE....

Authors of the information are mostly anonymous, there is no accountability for errors or fallacies and because of this WIKI is considered to be unreliable...

John Seigenthaler Sr an elderly man was shocked when he was informed his name was on WIKI in connection with the assassination of JFK and Bobby Kennedy....

Peer reviewed!!! By who? What are their credentials!!! Name the authorative sources who monitor WIKI!!!!

Now step away from your XBOX360, there's a whole real world outside of your bedroom...

[hurley_108]

stemmer stemmer:

WIKI is not accepted into a court of law....

Are you prepared to hold yourself to that standard here? Great. We'll never hear from you again.

[DrCaleb]

stemmer stemmer:

WIKI is not accepted into a court of law.... BECAUSE....

We are still not in a court of law. Good luck with that line of thought. Did you bring your lawyer? Take his advice, and say nothing.

stemmer stemmer:

Authors of the information are mostly anonymous, there is no accountability for errors or fallacies and because of this WIKI is considered to be unreliable...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians

stemmer stemmer:

John Seigenthaler Sr an elderly man was shocked when he was informed his name was on WIKI in connection with the assassination of JFK and Bobby Kennedy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seige ... ontroversy

See, now that is funny, right there! You point out the one incident that drastically changed how Wikipedia operates, and try to use it as a negative.

$1:

After the incident, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales stated that the encyclopaedia had barred unregistered users from creating new articles and taken other unspecified steps to prevent a recurrence

stemmer stemmer:

Peer reviewed!!! By who? What are their credentials!!! Name the authorative sources who monitor WIKI!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Wikipedia

But of course, I intentionally used only Wiki links because I know they are unreliable and you wont read them on advice from your Lawyer.

stemmer stemmer:

Now step away from your XBOX360, there's a whole real world outside of your bedroom...

Ooo! Ad Hominem! Thanks for demonstrating why you don't play well with others.

[bootlegga]

Wikipedia is a great resource when you want general information on a topic. The key is using it as your starting point and not as your sole resource. It has led to many an interesting article and/or connected me to a scholar I didn't even know existed.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wikipedia is a great resource when you want general information on a topic. The key is using it as your starting point and not as your sole resource. It has led to many an interesting article and/or connected me to a scholar I didn't even know existed.

Concur. I disagree with the details of many Wiki articles but that doesn't stop me from using them as a starting point in many conversations.

It's the people who foolishly cite Wiki as authoritative who make me giggle.

[stemmer]

Bingo Bart...!!!