wikipedia
- Thread starter peacius
- Start date
-
Throughout the month of April 2024, participate in the FileJoker Thread Contest OPEN TO EVERYONE!
From 1st to 30th of April 2024, members can earn cash rewards by posting Filejoker-Exclusive threads in the Direct-Downloads subforums.
There are $1000 in prizes, and the top prize is $450!
For the full rules and how to enter, check out the thread -
Akiba-Online is sponsored by FileJoker.
FileJoker is a required filehost for all new posts and content replies in the Direct Downloads subforums.
Failure to include FileJoker links for Direct Download posts will result in deletion of your posts or worse.
For more information see this thread.
Wikipedia is great. Yes, it can be edited by anyone, that's why they have a big team of moderators. People who hate wikipedia are usually people who blurt random statements and try to pin them off as the truth. Then someone looks it up on wikipedia and says "no, thats bullshit". They get their sad little statements crushed by wikipedia and thus, they hate it.
For quick, mostly reliable information, wikipedia is superior. Nothing I've found comes even close to it. It's a great wealth of information on so many different subjects.
For quick, mostly reliable information, wikipedia is superior. Nothing I've found comes even close to it. It's a great wealth of information on so many different subjects.
i think that some answer posted by the public are true and yet reliable so why not use it? If you aren't sure about something it it do some extra research and maby if they are wrong give a real answer and site your work if possible.
It's not that people hate it, it's just that the concept is a bit misleading. A lot of people think that the information written on it is fact, but it's really just what most people agree on. And just because a lot of people think a specific way about a topic doesn't necessarily make it true or factual. This is particularly bad if an article/entry is incorrect but a lot of people read it and mistakingly believe what it says. And since there is no consistency in citation (you can cite anything from a scholarly journal article to a myspace page), it's difficult to figure out how accurate a Wiki article is.
But, for the vast majority of articles on Wiki, I think it's a great tool for people to get a comprehensive overview of any subject they don't know about, just like any regular encyclopedia (which also gets updated annually due to changing "facts"). You should just take care to not always believe everything the Wiki says.
:goodboy:
But, for the vast majority of articles on Wiki, I think it's a great tool for people to get a comprehensive overview of any subject they don't know about, just like any regular encyclopedia (which also gets updated annually due to changing "facts"). You should just take care to not always believe everything the Wiki says.
:goodboy:
the main agument is mainly of fact topic
like"science","history"
the concent is that student use wiki for homework ,and then ,the wiki don't match the textbook
"that will make an incorrect answer...for exam-board"
education problem:attention::attention::attention::attention:
like"science","history"
the concent is that student use wiki for homework ,and then ,the wiki don't match the textbook
"that will make an incorrect answer...for exam-board"
education problem:attention::attention::attention::attention:
I love Wiki, its a mine of information that is so invaluable that I don't know where I'd be without it.
True people shouldn't put their blind faith in it: nothing is 100% accurate; even the great books of the world - The Bible for example, are sometimes rewritten, re-edited or "updated" to suit. So nothing can be taken at face value anymore, and Wiki is no different.
And like all success stories you'll always get your detractors & critics: whether it be Bill Gates, Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Google, AOL et al, successful products will always have the dissenters hanging onto their coat tails.
True people shouldn't put their blind faith in it: nothing is 100% accurate; even the great books of the world - The Bible for example, are sometimes rewritten, re-edited or "updated" to suit. So nothing can be taken at face value anymore, and Wiki is no different.
And like all success stories you'll always get your detractors & critics: whether it be Bill Gates, Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Google, AOL et al, successful products will always have the dissenters hanging onto their coat tails.
The bible is a horrible example in this case.
It never was anything other than pure bullshit.
Have you read the bible? It's what made me really realize I'm an atheist.
For example, it goes on about how god is perfect, god is justice, god is omniscient and omnipotent.
Yet, Adam successfully hid from god in a confined space!
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Omnipotent, except when it comes to chariots of iron?
"Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."
Stoned to death (with stones) for gathering sticks.
I could go on for a while, but I'm already off topic enough as is.
In short, I find the bible thoroughly flawed, and I openly laugh at people saying it's perfect.
Even the first few chapters of genesis contradict each other.
can of worms dude, can of worms
but i really don't think the bible was ever meant to be taken literally (yea that sound stupid because it's a piece of literature, but you know what i mean). it's just really fucked up that millions of misguided humans in positions of authority have taught the wrong things to innocent people for countless generations. The term 'lost in translation' couldn't be more applicable.
But I also believe that book, along with other significant religious texts have helped countless millions with certain struggles in their lives. So I couldn't really go along with calling it bullshit.
Because some people has had a hard time and clinging to the bible made them feel better won't make it any less bullshit.
'helped countless millions'? They probably could have made it all right without it.
Similarly to how a doctor could've saved the patient's life without the help of prayers and a 'miracle of god'.
I always hate it when people say that, as if biological science, the doctor and his many years of effort studying and researching had no part of it.
And the comfort it brings to some people pales in the face of the atrocities committed in its name over the millennia, and even continues its 'good work' today in the form of imposed 'morality' such as prohibition of gay marriage, censorship, working to bring pseudo-science into schools, etc.
The dark ages are called the dark ages for a reason.
Religion thrives in the weakness of human minds.
Fear is the sustenance of all religion.
It may soothe a lot of people, but left unchecked, it is dangerous.
'helped countless millions'? They probably could have made it all right without it.
Similarly to how a doctor could've saved the patient's life without the help of prayers and a 'miracle of god'.
I always hate it when people say that, as if biological science, the doctor and his many years of effort studying and researching had no part of it.
And the comfort it brings to some people pales in the face of the atrocities committed in its name over the millennia, and even continues its 'good work' today in the form of imposed 'morality' such as prohibition of gay marriage, censorship, working to bring pseudo-science into schools, etc.
The dark ages are called the dark ages for a reason.
Religion thrives in the weakness of human minds.
Fear is the sustenance of all religion.
It may soothe a lot of people, but left unchecked, it is dangerous.
Wikipedia is a good resource for general information. No it's not an expert on any given subject necessarily, but if you need to look up something like Zeno's paradox, then it gives you a good foundation to go off of.
Then again, I think people are forgetting that Wikipedia didn't proclaim to be a "perfectly" reliable source, neither do the people who contribute to the site (unless they're very cocky). It just needs to be taken at face value. It's a good example of an online encyclopedia, but it's not necessarily the créme-de-la-créme.
I can say it's helped me with a few things, like psychological statistics for example, so I can appreciate it.
....
I'm not really religious, nor am I spiritual, but my family and I have discussed the purpose of religion before. Some have argued that it's like any political governing body, except more subtle. Some have said that it provides stability in people's lives by giving them answers to difficult questions they have, while tying them to some larger being or some kind of important theory, so they won't feel so "alone." Based on this, the Bible just seems to be a guide for conduct and an effective way of organizing and possibly uniting groups of people.
Then again, I think people are forgetting that Wikipedia didn't proclaim to be a "perfectly" reliable source, neither do the people who contribute to the site (unless they're very cocky). It just needs to be taken at face value. It's a good example of an online encyclopedia, but it's not necessarily the créme-de-la-créme.
I can say it's helped me with a few things, like psychological statistics for example, so I can appreciate it.
....
I'm not really religious, nor am I spiritual, but my family and I have discussed the purpose of religion before. Some have argued that it's like any political governing body, except more subtle. Some have said that it provides stability in people's lives by giving them answers to difficult questions they have, while tying them to some larger being or some kind of important theory, so they won't feel so "alone." Based on this, the Bible just seems to be a guide for conduct and an effective way of organizing and possibly uniting groups of people.