541
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + + + + + + + + + +
File talk:Wikipedia scandals.jpg (view source)
Revision as of 00:57, October 11, 2007
, 00:57, October 11, 2007I actually think that this is the exact definition of the Idiot's Grin Strategem. So thanks, but no thanks: I'm out of this discussion.
<--
<--
Who says its an accussation? Who says WikiMedia's website is a "reliable source"? My Lord, you've opened a can of worms that is going nowhere. (Wikipedia, incidently, by it's Atribution policy defines itself, by name, as ''not'' a reliable source). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
Who says its an accussation? Who says WikiMedia's website is a "reliable source"? My Lord, you've opened a can of worms that is going nowhere. (Wikipedia, incidently, by it's Atribution policy defines itself, by name, as ''not'' a reliable source). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:Since it's the second time I notice this typo: "Accusation" has one "s" only.
:And I don't know what you'd call it, but I'd call "That was a back-dated donation in the middle of March or April. WP cooked the books. That's another unreported scandal." an accusation.
:Yes, Wikipedia's own disclaimer actually says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" on the disclaimer page. Incidentally, this "trustworthy encyclopedia" also says "CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" on its disclaimer page. I don't see what this has to do with WikiMedia, though. Other than doubting by association (I feel vaguely reminded of Clinton and Gay Bomb) again. Oh, and somehow you made two slips: One implied slip from WikiMedia to Wikipedia, and one from "How reliable are you and your anonymous source" to "How reliable is the source this entire graph is based on?"
:If you truly claim that MediaWiki is not a reliable source (and by openly questioning the reliability and by dishing out the accusation of WP/WM tampering the books, you do just that), then the image should be deleted because it's based on likely unreliable data, which was in turn "adjusted" per the claims of an unknown source (the 100k donation is officially dated March 19 - the last data point of the graph). Incidentally, if we stick to the "data is reliable" claim, the graph is fradulent (because the last data point is wrong) and thus should be deleted, too.
:I see it this way:
:*You implicitly claim the data is reliable when you try to prove that the "scandals" were the cause of the fluctuations
:*You implicitly and explicitly claim the data is unreliable when people point out that the graph is either wrong or misleading
:*You claim that you or your anonymous source established that the data was made reliable by singling out where tampering happened.
:I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this bending and twisting. Bold claims are replaced by even bolder ones, and reality warps around your every post. You have fun smearing Wikipedia. I did my duty as an editor by pointing out the extremely shaky ground this all is built on. It's up to a sysop to make a decision. I'm out of this discussion. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:57, 10 October 2007 (EDT)