Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 308: Line 308:     
::::::[[User:Newton|Newton]] 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 
::::::[[User:Newton|Newton]] 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::::: Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself?  [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
    
== Thank you Conservapedia ==
 
== Thank you Conservapedia ==
    
In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias.  I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example.  The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned.  The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ).  A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. {{unsigned|Trvl2much}} -- 09:56, 25 April 2010
 
In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias.  I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example.  The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned.  The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ).  A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. {{unsigned|Trvl2much}} -- 09:56, 25 April 2010
4

edits

Navigation menu