quote:

---

Sean thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
You were reaching pretty far for that one.

---

I have long arms.

It is not a professional fucking resource, nobody has claimed that, to my knowledge. I concede that Blindy may have, because Blindy's not the brightest bulb in the house, but he's wrong there.

And you're wrong because you're trying to hold something to standards that it isn't designed for. What the fuck is wrong with you? We've been over this, it's an encyclopedia by name only.

And if you don't stop touting Brittanica as the be-all-end-all of knowledge, I'm going to fucking scream, because nobody should ever only defer to one source of information.

quote:

---

The logic train ran off the tracks when Bloodsage said:
You're the one who claimed that the information on that page rendered my arguments invalid, when in fact it confirms the fact that any random idiot can edit any topic he pleases, and there is no expert oversight to ensure a reasonable standard of accuracy.

---

No, no I didn't, what THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU IGNORANT SHIT?

You claimed that there wasn't a SINGLE EXPERT OR INTELLIGENT PERSON on Wikipedia, and I gave you a page full of college students/graduates with degrees in various fields and you simply say, "They're all worthless dumbasses like Ruvyen and Blindy."

Jesus Christ, and you say we can't read.

quote:

---

Sean enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
No, no I didn't, what THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU IGNORANT SHIT?

You claimed that there wasn't a SINGLE EXPERT OR INTELLIGENT PERSON on Wikipedia, and I gave you a page full of college students/graduates with degrees in various fields and you simply say, "They're all worthless dumbasses like Ruvyen and Blindy."

Jesus Christ, and you say we can't read.

---

...Dude. Comparing people to Blindy is just terrible.

I'm gonna go cry now.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sean absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
No, no I didn't, what THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU IGNORANT SHIT?

You claimed that there wasn't a SINGLE EXPERT OR INTELLIGENT PERSON on Wikipedia, and I gave you a page full of college students/graduates with degrees in various fields and you simply say, "They're all worthless dumbasses like Ruvyen and Blindy."

Jesus Christ, and you say we can't read.

---

You're not very good at this game. Here's what I actually said:

quote:

---

First, very few of those names actually listed degrees--most just claimed expertise. Second, very few of those degrees were advanced. Third, there is no process that ensures that they only correct articles in their fields. Fourth, there is no requirement to have any expertise in a field in order to create or edit an article on a given subject.

But thanks for proving the point that there are absolutely no connections between a person's qualifications and the areas they can edit.

---

Where exactly did I say everyone there was a moron like you?

quote:

---

So here we find that accuracy is solely in the hand of anonymous people with no particular qualifications, working on their own time and schedule without any particular process. Sounds utterly reliable to me!

---

Then you say this,

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
So now you're agreeing that the information is unreliable? Or are you still asserting that a process is in place to verify information?

And let's examine an "expert" or two, shall we?

First, there's this guy. While he seems to have attended a lot of different schools (keeping in mind, of course, that none of these qualifications are actually verified, he doesn't seem to have got a degree out of the process that he's willing to share. And he claims expertise in quite a wide range of subjects, oh my! He's here to save the day through light activity on weekends.

Wow, I'm feeling better about this project already!

And look! Here's someone claiming expertise in biology!

And here's another biology expert! He also claims his A-level exams qualify him to edit several quite diverse subjects. Since when does taking the SAT qualify one to edit an encyclopedia?

liverkeenan#Biographical_Details" TARGET=_blank>Here's a guy listed as a law expert. Funny, not only does he not list any qualifications at all, he claims to expert in both urology and radio astronomy.

I counted exactly four people on that list claiming PhDs next to their names, and 2 others claiming Master's degrees. That pretty much confirms what I've said: that is not a page of experts, even if there was a process whereby people could only contribute in their fields.

---

Then you go back to 'random idiots' and other terms. Make up your fucking mind.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sean absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
No, that was your stupidest post yet. You somehow took "It shouldn't be used as your only source" to mean "IT IS WORTHLESS LET'S TEAR THIS MOTHERFUCKER DOWN WITH A WRECKING BALL", which is your stance.

It is not a professional fucking resource, nobody has claimed that, to my knowledge. I concede that Blindy may have, because Blindy's not the brightest bulb in the house, but he's wrong there.

And you're wrong because you're trying to hold something to standards that it isn't designed for. What the fuck is wrong with you? We've been over this, it's an encyclopedia by name only.

And if you don't stop touting Brittanica as the be-all-end-all of knowledge, I'm going to fucking scream, because nobody should ever only defer to one source of information.

---

It is worthless, and their lame disclaimer has nothing to do with my argument. No scholarly work should be based on a single source. Every source used, however, should be reliable, and Wikipedia doesn't qualify, whereas a print encyclopedia would. If you had the faintest clue about research methods, you'd not argue the point.

I'm not holding to standards it isn't designed for; it claims to be a source for knowledge. It is not. It is nothing more nor less than a collection of articles "peer reviewed" by completely unqualified people. It has the same chance of giving correct answers as asking people on the street--all it does is save the time and expense of a poll, while being nothing more than a complicated version of one. If any information on the site is correct, it is despite the process and not because of it.

Stupid shit like this is exactly the reason ridiculous notions like ID can take hold in the mainstream and be foisted upon educators: dumbasses don't know the difference between valid and invalid intellectual processes, and ignorant people can't tell the difference between peer review by experts and the fallacies of golden mean or popularity.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sean absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
First you say this,
Then you go back to 'random idiots' and other terms. Make up your fucking mind.

---

You're not the sharpest tool, are you?

One doesn't have to claim that everyone involved in the project is stupid--the mere fact that unqualified people have access to change the information proves that the information is unreliable. There are most certainly random idiots on the page you showed me, like the guy claiming his A-level exams qualified him to edit several diverse topics, or any of the others I highlighted. And these are your claimed "experts," supposedly a notch above the anonymous contributors.

Sean fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 07:32 PM.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Sean squealed:
Whatever, Sage. You're too righteous to accept a differing opinion, and you're too fucking retarded to convince anyone that your own is correct, so I'm largely done here. Because my time is important and rare, and too valuable to be wasted here.

---

Standard cop-out of an idiot.

quote:

---

Bloodsage stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Standard cop-out of an idiot.

---

quote:

---

Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Standard cop-out of an idiot.

---

Sean has a point, though. No, Wikipedia isn't reliable, but how many websites would you classify as completely reliable?

quote:

---

Ruvyen startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Sean has a point, though. No, Wikipedia isn't reliable, but how many websites would you classify as completely reliable?

---

Except that his point is that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, right up there with Encyclopedia Britannica.

Did you miss the part where he and Blindy and Snugglits have all said it's a good source of factual information with a process that ensures accuracy on a par with standard reference works?

quote:

---

Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Except that his point is that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, right up there with Encyclopedia Britannica.

Did you miss the part where he and Blindy and Snugglits have all said it's a good source of factual information with a process that ensures accuracy on a par with standard reference works?

---

Yet again you fail to read yet get angry when others do. Because all I said was that it's not reliable for a reference but is acceptable for curiousity on how something works or takes place.

But what does it matter? You're going to say I misread your post or something else senile. Like you always do.

Also: encyclopedias are unacceptable for use as a work in a reference. UNACCEPTABLE.

Snugglits fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 07:50 PM.

quote:

---

Snugglits startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Yet again you fail to read yet get angry when others do. Because all I said was that it's not reliable for a reference but is acceptable for curiousity on how something works or takes place.

But what does it matter? You're going to say I misread your post or something else senile. Like you always do.

Also: encyclopedias are unacceptable for use as a work in a reference. UNACCEPTABLE.

---

Here's what you actually said:

quote:

---

As a factual source, wikipedia is almost always right on the money. It's only on neutral/bias issues that it loses its value. And again, I think the nature of it is obvious to anyone who uses it.

---

If you can't even be trusted to quote yourself accurately. . . ?

And encyclopedias are perfectly acceptable sources of fact in certain situations. That's what they're for, just like dictionaries.

quote:

---

Sean was naked while typing this:
It is not a professional fucking resource, nobody has claimed that, to my knowledge. I concede that Blindy may have, because Blindy's not the brightest bulb in the house, but he's wrong there.

---

No, Sean didn't say Wikipedia was a terribly reliable information source. Blindy seems to have, but let's face it, he's fucking Blindy. We could probably spoof a Wikipedia entry saying aliens are coming to destroy Earth in five days, and he'd probably believe it because, hey, it's on the Internet, it must be true!

But that's not my point. We know nothing on the Internet is a good source of information, and have thoroughly smacked Blindy down. We're done here.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
If you can't even be trusted to quote yourself accurately. . . ?

And encyclopedias are perfectly acceptable sources of fact in certain situations. That's what they're for, just like dictionaries.

---

My personal anecdote that it works for casual interests. So far, in what I've seen, wikipedia has been accurate for factual things. I said nothing about its processes.

And no, encyclopedias are not acceptable, except for casual interest.

Snugglits fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 07:59 PM.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Snugglits squealed:
My personal anecdote that it works for casual interests. So far, in what I've seen, wikipedia has been accurate for factual things. I said nothing about its processes.

And no, encyclopedias are not acceptable, except for casual interest.

---

You didn't say either that it was a personal anecdote or that it was good only for casual interest. You asserted that it was almost always correct on factual issues, and only had problems when neutrality/bias were involved. Those are very different things.

So what is your source for saying that an encyclopedia can never be used as a source under any circumstance?

quote:

---

Bloodsage Model 2000 was programmed to say:
You didn't say either that it was a personal anecdote or that it was good only for casual interest. You asserted that it was almost always correct on factual issues, and only had problems when neutrality/bias were involved. Those are very different things.

So what is your source for saying that an encyclopedia can never be used as a source under any circumstance?

---

Probably college. I know at the University of Manitoba, using encyclopedia entries for your papers as opposed to, say, journal articles and scholarly books is usually frowned upon.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about (_|_):
You didn't say either that it was a personal anecdote or that it was good only for casual interest. You asserted that it was almost always correct on factual issues, and only had problems when neutrality/bias were involved. Those are very different things.

So what is your source for saying that an encyclopedia can never be used as a source under any circumstance?

---

Never once since I've been in, say, 5th grade, has an encyclopedia been an acceptable reference.

quote:

---

Ruvyen startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Probably college. I know at the University of Manitoba, using encyclopedia entries for your papers as opposed to, say, journal articles and scholarly books is usually frowned upon.

---

Of course, because they're not appropriate in those situations. But if one needs a random fact, such as the average rainfall annually in Kuala Lumpur, a current encyclopedia is a perfectly acceptable source. Just as an almanac rather than an astronomer would be a perfectly good source for the date of a full moon in a given month and year.

Edit: wrong word.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 08:13 PM.

quote:

---

Snugglits startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Never once since I've been in, say, 5th grade, has an encyclopedia been an acceptable reference.

---

Probably because you haven't been taught their proper use, and it's easier to ban them than to teach youngsters the shades of what they're good for and what they're not.

quote:

---

Bloodsage stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Of course, because they're not appropriate in those situations. But if one needs a random fact, such as the average rainfall annually in Kuala Lumpur, a current encyclopedia is a perfectly acceptable source. Just as an almanac rather than an astronomer would be a perfectly good source for the date of a full moon in a given month and year.

Edit: wrong word.

---

This sounds like a casual interest to me, but what do I know?

quote:

---

Snugglits startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
This sounds like a casual interest to me, but what do I know?

---

What?! There are a variety of situations in a scholarly paper that would require factual tidbits like those. It's perfectly acceptable to use those sources for that type of information.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Captain Planet:
What?! There are a variety of situations in a scholarly paper that would require factual tidbits like those. It's perfectly acceptable to use those sources for that type of information.

---

I can't think of there being an assignment where such trivial information wouldn't be provided, would be useful, and/or wouldn't be the point of research for the assignment.

But, you know, I'm sure what essentially amounts to a child's resource would be useful to a college student's paper somehow.

What do I know?

Baby, can't you see
I'm calling
A guy like you should wear a warning
It's dangerous
I'm falling

There's no escape
I can't wait
I need a hit
Baby, give me it
You're dangerous
I'm loving it

Too high
Can't come down
Losin' my head
Spinnin' 'round and 'round
Do you feel me now?

With the taste of your lips
I'm on a ride
You're toxic I'm slippin' under
With a taste of the poison paradise
I'm addicted to you
Don't you know that you're toxic?
And I love what you do
Don't you know that you're toxic?

It's getting late
To give you up
I took a sip
From my devil's cup
Slowly, it's taking over me

Too high
Can't come down
It's in the air and it's all around
Can you feel me now?

With the taste of your lips
I'm on a ride
You're toxic I'm slippin' under
With the taste of the poison paradise
I'm addicted to you
Don't you know that you're toxic?
And I love what you do
Don't you know that you're toxic?
Don't you know that you're toxic?

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Snugglits squealed:

What do I know?

---

Not much about research methods, obviously. Or logic. First, it was, "They can never, ever be used!" Then it was, "That's not research, that's casual interest!" Now it's, "Okay, but I can't think of a situation where that situation would apply."

Hate to break it to you, but for anyone doing real research, the need for random factual tidbits on the periphery is quite real. That's where dictionaries, encyclopedias, maps, and a whole host of other secondary sources are quite valuable. Sometimes, it's even necessary to cite them as sources.

Edit: typo

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 08:47 PM.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
That's the catch-22: reply to everything, and someone does that; ignore the stupid stuff, and Sean claims victory because you're obviously afraid of his intellectual bigness.

Edit: typo

---

Replying to everything causes people to watch you masturbate?

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Ruvyen gently hums:
Replying to everything causes people to watch you masturbate?

---

Duh. It's obvious.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Cuba:
That's the catch-22: reply to everything, and someone does that; ignore the stupid stuff, and Sean claims victory because you're obviously afraid of his intellectual bigness.

---

You're just about the most pathetic person I've seen around these parts; What did you not fucking understand about me leaving the thread because you're beyond reason? I never claimed victory, and neither did I admit defeat, because the thread got to that point where it's no logner worth the fight.

You hit that point in every fucking thread where you just stop trying and resort to parroting your 'argument' over and over again in between calling your opposition any insult you can bang out with those ape-like hands of yours. You make no effort to read the other person's arguments, or try to convince them your own is correct, you just keep inflating your own ego until you think you're King Dick of Douche Mountain.

I'd call it jumping the shark, but that comparison is an insult to Happy Days.

Oh yeah, I didn't read the thread, so sorry if my response seems out of place. The rest looks like filler anyway.

Fazum'Zen Fastfist fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 08:57 PM.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sean absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
You're just about the most pathetic person I've seen around these parts; What did you not fucking understand about me leaving the thread because you're beyond reason? I never claimed victory, and neither did I admit defeat, because the thread got to that point where it's no logner worth the fight.

You hit that point in every fucking thread where you just stop trying and resort to parroting your 'argument' over and over again in between calling your opposition any insult you can bang out with those ape-like hands of yours. You make no effort to read the other person's arguments, or try to convince them your own is correct, you just keep inflating your own ego until you think you're King Dick of Douche Mountain.

I'd call it jumping the shark, but that comparison is an insult to Happy Days.

---

Here's what you said:

quote:

---

Just get angry and stop responding, like you always do, because this joke is running out. . . .

---

Honestly, if you don't understand what's going on, it's easier to ask a question than to spout off on an unrelated tangent and look more like an idiot than you do already. First you say that if I stop posting, it must be because I'm mad that I lost, and now you say that I go on too long.

The flaw here isn't anything I've said. It's that you don't know the difference between logic and emotion, between peer review among experts and public consensus. You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, and yet you blame me for being unable to convince you, as if the only measure of a valid argument--hell, any measure of a valid argument--is that you believe it.

Jeebus, you can't even respond appropriately to something as easy as that, yet everyone is supposed to be dazzled by your illogical bumbling about the content, contributors, and processes at Wikipedia?

Edit: typo.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 09:05 PM.

quote:

---

Loosely translated, Sean says "Kill the whales":
No, that was your stupidest post yet. You somehow took "It shouldn't be used as your only source" to mean "IT IS WORTHLESS LET'S TEAR THIS MOTHERFUCKER DOWN WITH A WRECKING BALL", which is your stance.

It is not a professional fucking resource, nobody has claimed that, to my knowledge. I concede that Blindy may have, because Blindy's not the brightest bulb in the house, but he's wrong there.

And you're wrong because you're trying to hold something to standards that it isn't designed for. What the fuck is wrong with you? We've been over this, it's an encyclopedia by name only.

And if you don't stop touting Brittanica as the be-all-end-all of knowledge, I'm going to fucking scream, because nobody should ever only defer to one source of information.

---

Fuck you, all I said was
1) It is potentially the least biased source available.
and
2) It is not inaccurate by design.

quote:

---

Ruvyen isn't in Kansas anymore:
...Dude. Comparing people to Blindy is just terrible.

I'm gonna go cry now.

---

Go fuck yourself with a sword you snooty bitch.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Bloodsage:
Interesting argument on the discussion page of, ironically, the editorial policy, that proves exactly what I've been saying: it's all about consensus rather than accuracy, and anyone can make any changes at any time, and there is no process except more consensus to correct it except months down the road, and then only if an administrator gets involved.

---

Pretty much every one of your arguments stems from the use of Wikipedia as a resource, which is correct--it's not a resource.

With that firmly in mind, I'd like to point out that it's still a lot of information, whether it's true or not. While its usefullness is diminished considerably by the problems you've eloquently and repeatedly pointed out, the site is still of great use to those people who are looking for a general overview of a topic, a starting place, or something of casual interest. The fact that people take information on Wikipedia at face value is not entirely the responsibility of the owners and editors of the site; it's a public Wiki, for fuck's sake. It's not a technology built for information integrity--it's built for open communication. While you can convincingly argue that Wikipedia panders to the fallacy of consensus, you can still skim off the cream, so to speak.

Also, Blindy...to claim that Wikipedia's "not inaccurate by design" is not truthful--it's certainly not designed to be accurate.

To be clear, I'm just trying to point out that the site and technology are of use to society as an "information dump", rather than a real resource. People's misuse of Wikipedia is, in your words, distateful indeed.

Edit: removed superfluous adjectives. Bad habit.

Alidane fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 10:35 PM.