Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 22 2018 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: Wikipedia is fantastic. There is no better or more reliable source of up-to-date information. This would remain true even if someone were to supply a list over 50000 mistakes they found in various texts - Wikipedia is so much more encompassing than any other source of information (aside from 'google') that far more mistakes will be found even if the percentage is similar. (and various studies have shown that the reliability of Wikipedia rivals that of encyclopedia britannica anyway).
Regarding political questions it's a bit more left leaning than other online encyclopedias, but this is a trend that reduces itself the more time that passes and the more edits and revisions are made towards the content.
The more scientific and complex is the topic the less accurate wikipedia becomes. I have seen short articles with mutiple errors. I will post example later.
Shorter articles and more esoteric topics are more likely to have errors because a) they have less contributors b) they have fewer possible contributors capable of detecting the errors. The more contributors you get, the more detailed the text gets, and the more people you get who will be alterted if some new, wrong information is posted.
But as Kwark said, even then, the ratio of errors is similar to that of print encyclopedias, and the range (and depth) of topics covered vastly, vastly outstrips that of any other source of information. (There's more than 2500 times as much text on the english version of Wikipedia as there is in encyclopedia britannica)
Basically I'm just saying that, even though there is no problem at all finding examples of really wrong stuff being posted on Wikipedia, and wrong stuff being posted without being corrected on Wikipedia for a long period of time, there are so many articles posted there that the ratio of correct:incorrect still rivals that of print encyclopedias, or basically, 'any other source of information there is'. People who are negative towards Wikipedia do themselves a great intellectual disservice because they rob themselves of the most convenient source of reliable knowledge there is, and people who 'frequently see errors there', should really up their game and start editing it, something they are entirely free to do.
Not to mention that if you find something wrong on Wikipedia: Fix it! It's community driven after all. Whining about "I can show you several articles that have mistakes in them" as a criticism of the wiki without taking 2 minutes to fix it only makes it a self fulfilling prophecy.
On December 22 2018 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: Wikipedia is fantastic. There is no better or more reliable source of up-to-date information. This would remain true even if someone were to supply a list over 50000 mistakes they found in various texts - Wikipedia is so much more encompassing than any other source of information (aside from 'google') that far more mistakes will be found even if the percentage is similar. (and various studies have shown that the reliability of Wikipedia rivals that of encyclopedia britannica anyway).
Regarding political questions it's a bit more left leaning than other online encyclopedias, but this is a trend that reduces itself the more time that passes and the more edits and revisions are made towards the content.
The more scientific and complex is the topic the less accurate wikipedia becomes. I have seen short articles with mutiple errors. I will post example later.
I don’t think anyone thinks it’s perfect, but it absolutely holds up against print encyclopedias.
Oh, it's definitely better! And I love the fact that many Wiki articles have dozens, if not hundreds, of cited sources that allow us to further research the topic.
On December 22 2018 02:59 farvacola wrote: The NYT alert I saw said that they removed two malignant modules and that there is no other detectable evidence of the disease
looks like my prediction from a few months ago is turning out to be correct
On December 22 2018 02:59 farvacola wrote: The NYT alert I saw said that they removed two malignant modules and that there is no other detectable evidence of the disease
looks like my prediction from a few months ago is turning out to be correct
What was the prediction? If it was 'Ruth dies soon' I think a lot of people have been worried about that. I mean, she is very old.
On December 22 2018 02:59 farvacola wrote: The NYT alert I saw said that they removed two malignant modules and that there is no other detectable evidence of the disease
looks like my prediction from a few months ago is turning out to be correct
Per NPR they found the cancer modules only after examining her broken ribs. But-for her falling and breaking her ribs, they may not have found these until it was too late. Fate works in mysterious ways yo.
On December 22 2018 04:10 On_Slaught wrote: Per NPR they found the cancer modules only after examining her broken ribs. But-for her falling and breaking her ribs, they may not have found these until it was too late. Fate works in mysterious ways yo.
Founding fathers creating Christmas miracles while looking down and thinking "fucking christ what is going on down there"
On December 22 2018 04:10 On_Slaught wrote: Per NPR they found the cancer modules only after examining her broken ribs. But-for her falling and breaking her ribs, they may not have found these until it was too late. Fate works in mysterious ways yo.
fate overdetermines death here. rbg cannot escape lachesis’ allotment: cancer or falling/pneumonia/open chest surgery or ... whatever
On December 22 2018 04:10 On_Slaught wrote: Per NPR they found the cancer modules only after examining her broken ribs. But-for her falling and breaking her ribs, they may not have found these until it was too late. Fate works in mysterious ways yo.
fate overdetermines death here. rbg cannot escape lachesis’ allotment: cancer or falling/pneumonia/open chest surgery or ... whatever
oedipus, who is fortunate to be warned by the oracle that he will kill his father, leaves the shepherd who raised him to seek his fortune elsewhere, far away from the father figure who nurtured him. on the road he encounters an old man . . .
With the government shutdown likely happening tonight, would I expect the national parks to close too in that event? My family planned a trip to a national park for over this holiday weekend, but we might need to cancel if the shutdown closes down the park.
On December 22 2018 05:09 eviltomahawk wrote: With the government shutdown likely happening tonight, would I expect the national parks to close too in that event? My family planned a trip to a national park for over this holiday weekend, but we might need to cancel if the shutdown closes down the park.
Not sure. The Trump admin might force them to work without pay.
I like how they keep finding tapes of Mulvaney saying bad things about Trump a few years ago. They found him saying Trump is a terrible human being and now on the wall:
The fence doesn't solve the problem. Is it necessary to have one, sure? Would it help? Sure. But to just say build the darn fence and have that be the end of an immigration discussion is absurd and almost childish for someone running for president to take that simplistic of [a] view,
On December 22 2018 07:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I like how they keep finding tapes of Mulvaney saying bad things about Trump a few years ago. They found him saying Trump is a terrible human being and now on the wall:
The fence doesn't solve the problem. Is it necessary to have one, sure? Would it help? Sure. But to just say build the darn fence and have that be the end of an immigration discussion is absurd and almost childish for someone running for president to take that simplistic of [a] view,
At this rate he'll only last two Mooches
Well he is only 'Acting' So that sounds like a 2 to 3 mooch job
Apart from the extremely obnoxious/toxic nature of yours, i'm not entirely sure what's going on in your head asking "was Romney right all along" to then link a video that shows him A: being wrong on Iraq and B: not having a set opinion on how long troops should be stationed in Afghanistan.
I'm not entirely sure what the point of your purely detrimental contributions to the thread is supposed to be, but at least put some effort in.
You are putting more thought into your post than Nettles ever did. He is here for cheap one liners and video dumps.
Obama’s stance on Russia mirrored the nation’s naivety. We had bee spoon fed a steady diet telling us that terrorism is the last enemy and never really noticed that people like Putin should never have been trusted.
EPT
