Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
And Jokipedia is not a substitute for actual humor.
-
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!
Wikipedia is not a substitute for actual research.
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yet sexipedia is a perfectly good substitute for sex.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
For unequivocal, disreputable, and undebateable(is that even a word? Yes it is. Declares I.) facts I go to one of two sites
Uncyclopedia
Main Page - Encyclopedia Dramatica
Uncyclopedia
Main Page - Encyclopedia Dramatica
Revoltipedia?
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Does it have pictures?
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
There's no telling.
Which is why I share my secrets with you and your little monkey.
Which may be part of the reason he's been waking up screaming in the middle of the night lately.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Which may be part of the reason he's been waking up screaming in the middle of the night lately.
Nah, I watched The Temple of Doom with him one night, and he's been terrified ever since. :sorry1: I didn't know the monkey brain eating would affect him so much.
No.
Only a paucity of info & a didactic tone.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
We have bacon.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Yer dern toot'n!
We have juicy beef steak too!
And chicken with cheese on it, covered with cat treats!
We have juicy beef steak too!
And chicken with cheese on it, covered with cat treats!
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
I use Wikipedia mostly for entertainment and quick references. I've used it a couple of times in an argument, but that was mostly to demonstrate how common the knowledge was.. in a, like, did-you-even-bother-to-look-at-the-wiki?-point. Honestly, I don't see why it couldn't be used as a source, as long as the person who was doing the source took responsibility for the information they were using (as in, if it was incorrect, then the same results would be expected for the usage of outdated textbooks.) Wikipedia has some seriously good information, especially in math, statistics, health, biology, chemistry, philosophy, and so on. As long as the topic isn't a highly politicized one, there you are unlikely to encounter falsifications, at least convincing falsifications that might lead you astray. It would obviously be a beneficial thing to check out the sources though, and the logbook for the article, so that you can examine the justification for the reference and any disputes that might have taken place over a bit of information.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I agree that Wikipedia can be a fine source to get general information. And the sources that are provided can be quite helpful. I've used them myself.
My main problem is using Wikipedia as an end all source. There have been many times when, in order to dismiss what I say, another will throw in a Wikipedia link and act as if it is the end all on the subject. That even though I have done a large amount of research on a subject, Wikipedia all of a sudden trumps that all, and what I said is of no use. It really just makes me want to slam my head into a wall, but alas, I can't afford to fix the holes any longer.
As just a quick reference, I see no problem with it. But it is when it is put on a pedestal, especially on an issue where there is a lot of debate, and acted as if it is the say all.
My main problem is using Wikipedia as an end all source. There have been many times when, in order to dismiss what I say, another will throw in a Wikipedia link and act as if it is the end all on the subject. That even though I have done a large amount of research on a subject, Wikipedia all of a sudden trumps that all, and what I said is of no use. It really just makes me want to slam my head into a wall, but alas, I can't afford to fix the holes any longer.
As just a quick reference, I see no problem with it. But it is when it is put on a pedestal, especially on an issue where there is a lot of debate, and acted as if it is the say all.
dust1n
Zindīq
I don't think I've ever encountered someone who seriously thought a wikipedia argument was going to settle the score, let alone just one source in and of itself. I can understand your frustration though, cause I'd be pretty bothered if it was done to me. I've noticed that most people only engage on topics half-heartedly and generally won't bother to do much research on it either way, presumably because they already 'know' with such certainty that they are right.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
That IS quite irritating. I try not to counter any well-informed research with Wiki. Instead, I insist I feel VERY VERY strongly on the subject and am therefore right.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I might have to use that from now on. I have a debate coming up in one of my classes, I may just have to keep that as a backup defense. :beach: