They Blocked Snopes!
- Thread starter Lord Krunk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A)I hate our school's filter, but the escapist is safe for now.Reaperman Wompa said:
B)I don't get you?
C)Have a dump maybe?
Yeah, about 6 months back, some people did that, with Counter Strike and Halo, so we could play over LAN. Not that I used it that much anyway.Hunde Des Krieg said:
Needless to say, the school did a major crackdown an all foreign installations.
I'll try that.crepesack said:
hststsps://, I've never heard that one before. Chances are, no-one else has either. Score!
luckily for us the admins never did anything, "I think we got 'em demoralized." "Shut up, bendejo." five points if you get the qouteLord Krunk said:
Sayvara's point still stands as it was made: sources aren't quoted, so further reading is much harder to find after the X hundred word summary that all encyclopaedia entries are by necessity.asinann said:
Your last sentence was already headed off by Sayvara's post (a part you've forgotten to quote). Wikipedia owns up that it shouldn't be taken as a detailed source - but neither should Encyclopaedia Britannica be used as anything but a summary.
I have my own laptop for school and my school has a light filter that blocks gaming and the like.
but thankfuly not the escapest or youtube.
thou if i did want to play games I just go outside the princibles office( there is a nice little corner were people cant see the screen) and I borow the princibles wireless interent. (unfiltered).
but thankfuly not the escapest or youtube.
thou if i did want to play games I just go outside the princibles office( there is a nice little corner were people cant see the screen) and I borow the princibles wireless interent. (unfiltered).
Funny, I could have done that at one point.zacaron said:
Until... [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.75809.881001]
corroded said:
yeah, one of the teachers in the highschools password was 12345, so the filter didn't bother me any.
So what? Credible people make mistakes too. Credible people have agendas too. Credible people have opinions too. Credible people will do wrong too.asinann said:
In academics, titles are nothing. Your professorate is worth nothing if you make claims that you cannot back up. The veracity of what you publish is not based on your title. The important part is the peer review, the process where other people read your work, and make up their own minds whether you know what you are talking about or not.
The perhaps most famous example of all: Albert Einstein. In the year 1905, when he published his most important work, he was an office clerk at the patent office in Berne, Switzerland. Not a professor. Not a doctorate. He was essentially an academic nobody. Yet he revolutionized physics as we know it.
Another famous example of this was the scientist Jacques Benveniste. Benveniste was a respected researcher and scientist. He was also a very charming man and had very easy to gain sympathy.
Benveniste came to a rather startling conclusion: that water seemed to "remember" a substance it had once contained even though it was no longer present in the water. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMDV-4KGWi8] He wrote an article to Nature, one of the most respected scientific journals in the world where he announced his research. Sir John Maddox was the editor of Nature. He became faced with a problem: he knew that Benveniste was wrong; that what he was saying was a physical impossibility. But the researched seemed legitimate, and Benveniste truly believed what he wrote.
So Maddox did it the scientific skeptic way: he took a team of people with him and went to the lab and asked Benveniste's team to repeat the experiments. They did so, and they seemed to be getting the same results again. But Maddox's team noticed that Benveniste and his assistants were not adhering to the gold standard of scientific research: they were not double-blinding their tests. Maddox asked Benveniste to do it all again, this time with double-blinding. They did so.
The results were devastating. The claimed effect simply wasn't there. Benveniste had been completely wrong [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMegB9-QUk].
One would think that this was a wake-up call for Benveniste and that as a good scientist he should have admitted that he had not worked as rigorous as could have been expected. But Benveniste persisted and claimed that the effect was there. He went even further and claimed that this effect which he had observed could be transmitted over the telehone, or even emailed accross the world. When he died in 2004, he had been utterly discredited and made ridiculed by winning two IgNobel-prizes, so far the only person to do so.
Hence: you cannot trust anyone to be right. Not even "experts". And one doesn't have to be an "expert" to be right.
This goes to show that your argument that paper encyclopedia are better that Wikipedia because they have single-editor articles is weak at best.
Further more: how do you know for sure that the articles in paper encyclopedias really were written by experts in the field and that a particular article was not compiled by some office temp?
Do that. Go right ahead and do that. Edit into the english Wikipedia article about the Sun [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun&action=edit] that the star Sol has a yummy marshmallow center. Then sit back and watch. Within a few minutes, this edit will be gone and your user will have gotten a notice saying that you shouldn't vandalize Wikipedia.asinann said:
Granted non-english Wikipedias are slower at this. But vandalism still does not go unnoticed. The advantage of Wikipedia is that errors can be easilly seen and removed. The transparency is complete. How do you achieve that with a paper encyclopedia?
Perhaps you are claiming that paper encyclopedias do not contain errors. Nature's comparison of errors between Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature] shows with devastating clarity that EB is not much better than Wikipedia. EB went ballistic, of course, but the comparison still reverberates: paper encyclopedias are not perfect either, and the order of magnitude of errors is the same for Wikipedia as with other encyclopedias.
Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia].
Which is exactly how it should be with any encyclopedia! If you are using an encylopedia as a one-stop shop for information, then you are doing it wrong. If your college instructor allows you to use an encyclopedia as your only source, then he/she's wrong! If you relying on encyclopedias to be accurate and definitive, then you are wrong wrong wrong wrong... wrong wrong wrong wrong... you're wrong... you're wrong... you're wrong [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY]!asinann said:
Wikipedia does not hold truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Wikipedia specifically says that it doesn't. Anyone that assumes that Wikipedia holds Truth? does so in direct contradiction of how Wikipedia states how to use it.
The difference is that Wikipedia admits this and is open about its weaknesses. How many other encyclopedias do that?
/S
I was referring to Lord Krunk. He went from green background to a guy in a green uniform.sirdanrhodes said:
And regarding c) yes, maybe, but do you really want to do that for hours every day?
Oh, well you got the right one then.Reaperman Wompa said:
Yeah, the uniform's actually blue, it's just the flame on his exploding milk bottle is glowing on him, giving him a greenish tinge.
I remember our school filter. It was stupid. Seriously, it blocked pictures of houses, saying that they were pornography.
...
You can laugh now.
It also blocked an FAQ on a site, saying that it was online dating.
...
You can laugh now.
It also blocked an FAQ on a site, saying that it was online dating.
What? Why? It's inoffensive and has nothing inappropriate on it. You can block 4Chan, and I'll understand. But block my pointless wastes of time, and you shall PAY!Lord Krunk said:
The university I'm at now has a filter on violence, pornography, and... something else, I'm sure. What's interesting is when one of my professors tells us about how she was needing to look up something about terrorist group X and it's blocked; thus, she's unable to do her research. It's more aggravating that the filter here will block random YouTube videos and such... Also, that it's a goddamn university and we're all (technically) adults and filters are freaking stupid at this level of the educational system.
The filter we had in high school blocked humor, too. Actually, it also blocked any social networking site, webcomics (including XKCD), forums (the filter actually said, "Blocked for: Forums"), most images on Google, game websites, YouTube, and, my personal favorite, the sites blocked because it, I kid you not, "Bypassed filters."
It's getting out of hand when you try to do a report on breast cancer and everything is filtered for pornography >.<
The filter we had in high school blocked humor, too. Actually, it also blocked any social networking site, webcomics (including XKCD), forums (the filter actually said, "Blocked for: Forums"), most images on Google, game websites, YouTube, and, my personal favorite, the sites blocked because it, I kid you not, "Bypassed filters."
It's getting out of hand when you try to do a report on breast cancer and everything is filtered for pornography >.<
Well, a few months ago I was into a small site that I went on during lab time when I had finished my work, it was great because I thought it had no chance of being filtered because not many people went on it. Ironiclly, I didn't keep any track of the computers I used to go on it, and it got filtered.