Quote:No wonder colleges throughout the world are banning Wikipedia use as a research source.
Wikipedia is mostly a joke, all the more popular the topic gets.
Obscure topics might get the occasional serious professional or amateur, but very popular topics get many incompetent idiots, or idiots with an agenda, not to mention that popular topics are edited very frequently, so that wikipedia become an old wh-re changing her mind every drink she's offered.
Yet wikipedia serves the DI/DD clique well...an ounce of truth bathing in a sea of self-serving 'improvements'...
http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=212
Who's the idiot who wrote
Quote:The larger problem here is the Web is the first place that most of us turn to when looking for information. For an increasingly large set of topics, a Wikipedia article is not only one of the first few results returned by a search engine, it’s also one of the best, at least for a reasonably objective, concise and trustworthy overview. Tracking down information to a primary source is difficult, requiring skill, experience and time. More often than not, the primary source may require considerable background knowledge to be able to read and understand. It’s hard work!
What?
He ignores search engines have filters, E.G one may require only leads coming from *.edu or *.co.uk or similar addresses.
I ran thousands of web-searches querying multiple search engines simultaneously and rarely did wikipedia surface among the first leads.
Our pundit ignores that typically very first results are 'sponsored results', then others.
Saying that wikipedia is the only source is complete nonsense.
ham Wrote:Quote:No wonder colleges throughout the world are banning Wikipedia use as a research source.
Wikipedia is mostly a joke, all the more popular the topic gets.
Obscure topics might get the occasional serious professional or amateur, but very popular topics get many incompetent idiots, or idiots with an agenda, not to mention that popular topics are edited very frequently, so that wikipedia become an old wh-re changing her mind every drink she's offered.
Yet wikipedia serves the DI/DD clique well...an ounce of truth bathing in a sea of self-serving 'improvements'...
http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=212
Who's the idiot who wrote
Quote:The larger problem here is the Web is the first place that most of us turn to when looking for information. For an increasingly large set of topics, a Wikipedia article is not only one of the first few results returned by a search engine, it’s also one of the best, at least for a reasonably objective, concise and trustworthy overview. Tracking down information to a primary source is difficult, requiring skill, experience and time. More often than not, the primary source may require considerable background knowledge to be able to read and understand. It’s hard work!
What?
He ignores search engines have filters, E.G one may require only leads coming from *.edu or *.co.uk or similar addresses.
I ran thousands of web-searches querying multiple search engines simultaneously and rarely did wikipedia surface among the first leads.
Our pundit ignores that typically very first results are 'sponsored results', then others.
Saying that wikipedia is the only source is complete nonsense.
Wikipedia is owned by a porn king so why would it be that far of a streatch that the pedophile supporting loons from www,degreeinfo.com would become associated with Wikipedia?
George Dana Gollin having a bragging bio of himself on a web site (Wikipedia) where he is an editor is amazing.
Suggestion
Would everyone kindly use the spelling "Gollin" instead of "Gollum"? The reason is because Google and the other search engines key off the spelling of his last name. I am not going to speak negatively against him here, because that would be stooping to his level. Thanks.
Regards,
True Patriot