MaxTheReaper said:That's just stupid.OneBig Man said:Now from what I have been told, Wikipedia is not a reliable sourse for information because of its user generated content. So my question is, when you do research, do you actually research or do you just Wiki it?
99% of everything on the internet is user-generated content.
At least with Wikipedia, if someone screws up, someone else will probably correct it.
So yes, I do. It's pretty easy to tell when something has been vandalized anyway.
yea, that was pretty hard to tell.Cathode Ray Tubes:
penis
Yeah I also like the fact that after a trip through wikipedia, dipshits suddenly turn into e-geniuses (what the fuck happened to hard work and actually studying?)...cleverlymadeup said:wikipedia has a fun law of averages thing going. the fact that everyone can edit it actually helps make it more accurate. i do find it funny when people try and discredit your argument cause "you used wikipedia" it shows how little they actually know about the process
there was a philosopher that said that lower class people shouldn't vote cause they were stupid and didn't have the ability to rule properly. so he proposed a test to show that he was right. he had them guess the weight of a cow. now no one single guess was correct, however if you took the average of all the guesses they got it right.
the fact that the not one person was correct but the whole group was correct
I sense a conspiracy theory coming on : P, although you have a point. I know alot of people who get their facts wrong because they have read it off the internet where as I can pull out a book that proves them wrong.Rutawitz said:how do we know that anything posted on the internet is true?