Which is correct. It *is* a myth.
Faulting Wikipedia for getting something correct that you disagree with isn't a problem with Wikipedia.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
Which is correct. It *is* a myth.
Faulting Wikipedia for getting something correct that you disagree with isn't a problem with Wikipedia.
But shows the quality of argument JB is able to present. I don't think he could convince himself out of a bag.
In this thread we have quite a few people reading who are interested in Wikipedia, many of whom are very supportive of it. I'm going to take advantage of this audience to urge people who support Wikipedia to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. Most of us get a huge amount of information from Wikipedia, and make immense use of it. It is also a genuinely helpful educational tool which is helping people across the world, from all sorts of background, attain a good education.
Those people here defending it, please consider giving them a tenner.
Those people here defending it, please consider giving them a tenner.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Didn't bother to read your post. I only mentioned it because of its length. You don't like reading lengthy posts such as mine, but have no trouble posting them yourself.
I have absolutely no idea. I only brought up Mike Adams because you posted the following.
10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales
Which obviously impressed you (why else would you post it?), which was written by Mike Adams the creator of the web site. The point being, astute people don't usually quote others unless they know something about them. In other words, why do you trust what Adams says if you don't know anything about the guy? Unless, that is, all it takes is the fact that he agrees with you.
.
I posted 10 FACTS about Jimmy Wales with help from Mike Adams. What facts have you posted about Mike Adams? Creator of web site. Finally, you used your brain/mind to find something instead of asking others questions as you usually do on RF. Not. He's on WP ha ha. It shows one has to have intelligence to create a website that posts 10 facts about a great deceiver. Why not look up the answers to your internet atheist type questions on WP and take a stand. Stand up be counted.
The Bible says many antichrists will come before the final one. Is Jimmy Wales one? Liar, cheater and stealer if the claims of anything you write on WP becomes their property once they accept it.
Next question I have for the atheists, liberals and users of WP is where is WP's about, rules and liberal and atheist bias page? Does it tell you that they steal your words once they accept it and then it's copyrighted for them?
BTW I knew you wouldn't tldr based on deterministic theories of the brain. Higher functions like reading a long post, comprehending and submitting an intelligent and creative response require a mind.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I don't think the articles you've posted are trustworthy. Obviously articles from conservapedia are going to be biased on the subject of whether conservapedia is more trustworthy than wikipedia. I am asking if you have any outside, \non-conservative sources that look at the issue without bias? It's like using an anti-evolution site as evidence that evolution isn't accurate. It's foolish to believe conservapedia's claims about wikipedia as they obviously have an axe to grind with them.Conservapedia is more truthful than WP. I'm sure you read it, just like you read the Bible (sarcasm). It tells you up-front how it differes from WP -- http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments; http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About; http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia/.
I posted the facts of WP and Jimmy Wales in #1 and #13 and still you didn't read. Conservapedia tells you up front
james bond
Well-Known Member
How much did you give? If Britannica is worth $70/year, then why not do that?
Not gonna go into numbers. But I didn't give them as much as that
Also, it's not about buying access. It's about supporting an upstanding modern institution for the benefit of all beneficients. Britannica is closed, Wikipedia is open.
james bond
Well-Known Member
smh. More lies from Jimmy Wales. Wikitribune.
Delingpole: Memo to Jimmy Wales - 'Fake News' Is Fake News
Delingpole: Memo to Jimmy Wales - 'Fake News' Is Fake News
james bond
Well-Known Member
Not gonna go into numbers. But I didn't give them as much as that
Also, it's not about buying access. It's about supporting an upstanding modern institution for the benefit of all beneficients. Britannica is closed, Wikipedia is open.
>>It's about supporting an upstanding modern institution for the benefit of all beneficients<<
Upstanding modern institution? Obviously you missed posts #1 and #13. It's still liberal, atheist biased and censored that way. They steal original material from contributors and claim copyright on it. And WP still should not be used for academia.
"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.
Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.
The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background information or context for a topic you're writing about."
What's Wrong with Wikipedia? § Harvard Guide to Using Sources
We disagree r.e. that bias, and right, for an academic one of Wikipedia's primary functions is as a compendium of related references on a subject. You don't reference Wikipedia, you use it for an overview and then look at what it references in its articles for reliable sourcing,
james bond
Well-Known Member
If they weren't facts, then creepy Jimmy Wales would sue for libel. I am going to become a Natural News reader now and will be able report intelligent news to the internet folks here. What you don't seem to understand is where are the about, rules, disclaimer and copyright pages on WP? Once you post that, then we can discuss. I already posted what Conservapedia said. After reading, then you can decide using your free will whether to use or not. I haven't seen WP's pages, but I said I use it for entertainment, sport news and links. I usually don't accept WP links in serious conversation here. I won't donate to WP because it's liberal and atheist biased.
I wonder why you advertise Britannica by posting a link that fully supports the evidence for evolution. I suspect you do not read what you post. Well, I hope so
For instance, you can read:
The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: (1) the fact of evolution—that is, that organisms are related by common descent; (2) evolutionary history—the details of when lineages split from one another and of the changes that occurred in each lineage; and (3) the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary change occurs.
The first issue is the most fundamental and the one established with utmost certainty...
The evolutionary origin of organisms is today a scientific conclusion established with the kind of certainty attributable to such scientific concepts as the roundness of Earth, the motions of the planets, and the molecular composition of matter. This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt is what is implied when biologists say that evolution is a “fact”; the evolutionary origin of organisms is accepted by virtually every biologist.
It is basically saying that you are like a flat earther if you do not accept evolution and common descent.
Anyway, thanks for the advice. Britannica seems pretty sane.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I think WP is a good source, but it just has to be confirmed. Obviously, it's no secret that anyone can edit WP pages. They pride themselves on that. So, you have to look at the cited sources at the bottom of each page. Conservapedia is the same way. You can't just believe what is there. You have to confirm it with other sources.
Evolution
The reason you need a different flu jab every year.
Does that sound like postulating?
Note, the similar argument's apply to Britannica as you make for Wikipedia, it makes a good second source but does contain outdated and in some cases inaccurate information.
It should never be used as a primary source after grade school.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Ha, ha, ha!
The epicentre of fake news calling Wikipedia fake news.
You couldn't make it up...err...oh...as you were....that's what Breitbart do for a living
james bond
Well-Known Member
I wonder why you advertise Britannica by posting a link that fully supports the evidence for evolution. I suspect you do not read what you post. Well, I hope so
For instance, you can read:
The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: (1) the fact of evolution—that is, that organisms are related by common descent; (2) evolutionary history—the details of when lineages split from one another and of the changes that occurred in each lineage; and (3) the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary change occurs.
The first issue is the most fundamental and the one established with utmost certainty...
The evolutionary origin of organisms is today a scientific conclusion established with the kind of certainty attributable to such scientific concepts as the roundness of Earth, the motions of the planets, and the molecular composition of matter. This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt is what is implied when biologists say that evolution is a “fact”; the evolutionary origin of organisms is accepted by virtually every biologist.
It is basically saying that you are like a flat earther if you do not accept evolution and common descent.
Anyway, thanks for the advice. Britannica seems pretty sane.
Ciao
- viole
>>The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: (1) the fact of evolution—that is, that organisms are related by common descent;<<
>>It is basically saying that you are like a flat earther if you do not accept evolution and common descent.<<
You're welcome, viole. This is why Britannica is beautiful. It clarifies our biased and fuzzy thinking. Yes, I think we've agreed on the fact about organisms are related by "common descent." What Ayala is describing is descent with modifications or natural selection. Certainly, this is close to fact as I have been stating such as microevolution. However, creation scientists and evos diverge when we get into macroevolution or "common" descent from unrelated species. Thus, when I say that I did not descend from an ape, this is not descent with modification "common descent." It's like saying that I evolved from fish. There is no "common" descent here.
But all species are related...
You are an ape. By classification. By human classification. If you accept the definition for "ape," you automatically also accept the classification. Same goes for the term "primate." Either you're an ape, and a primate or your real issue is with word definitions.
Instead of trying to pointlessly argue that you aren't an ape, you should take it with the people who oversee word definitions, and ask them very nicely to change their definition to fit your views.
Oh right. I forgot. Language is a community effort. You already accept the definition of ape. You're just trying to pretend that you don't.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Again, it's your WP and internet atheist brain talking. Was Breitbart a porno king? What 10 facts do you have?
james bond
Well-Known Member
But all species are related...
You are an ape. By classification. By human classification. If you accept the definition for "ape," you automatically also accept the classification. Same goes for the term "primate." Either you're an ape, and a primate or your real issue is with word definitions.
Instead of trying to pointlessly argue that you aren't an ape, you should take it with the people who oversee word definitions, and ask them very nicely to change their definition to fit your views.
Oh right. I forgot. Language is a community effort. You already accept the definition of ape. You're just trying to pretend that you don't.
>>You are an ape.<<
No, I am not an ape. I am a human and descended from other humans. We already went through this in creation vs evo for umpteen pages.
Britannica:
"Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted he had, that “man was descended from the apes,” and modern scientists would view such a statement as a useless simplification—just as they would dismiss any popular notions that a certain extinct species is the “missing link” between man and the apes."
So biased by WP. Got lied to by Jimmy Wales ha ha.