Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who on earth would offer a wikipedia entry as a source at any educational inst. formal or informal? Lol.
The articles that wikipedia entries quote, however, are absolutely legitimate sources; they lead to other articles as well.
It's naive to dismiss all the thousands of entries there as unreliable, see my post you quoted for reasons why.
edit - and helenejen's post
As was mentioned, many do. You would be surprised how many people attempt to use it as a valid source. My wife used to tell me there were constant reprimands by the professors to students in her MBA who attempted to use it as a source. Also, there are numerous contests within wiki that leads to arguments over validation and yet often neither contest appropriately supports their contest in a manner to validate it.
Wiki is a source for information, not validated information. It could be wrong, it could be right, or it could simply be someones subjective interpretation on a subject. Thats fine for topical discussions without a requirement of validation and useful for some technical sources for various purposes, but as a form of informing ones self properly on a subject in and how it concerns legitimacy, it is a poor source.
I believe the world doesn't give us enough to believe in.
So we should look to any possible source of guidance to help us through the messy morass of life.
If Wikipedia does it for you, lovely. If the Church of Scientology is your preference, lovely too.
But it seems these two sources are in something of a credibility saber fight, one in which Wikipedia has dealt the church a wounding swipe.
In a decision that will concern some in Los Angeles, the online encyclopedia has decided to ban all changes to the site made by IP addresses owned or operated by the church and its associates.
The decision shows that Wikipedia's arbitrators were anything but arbitrary. They noted around 430 articles concerning the Church of Scientology and described "persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources on multiple articles."
"Being a scientologist when you drive by an accident, it's not like anyone else. As you drive past, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you are the only one that can really help."
REALLY? All scientologists are EMTs?
Further proof that Tom Cruise is off his rocker. Go Wiki!
As was mentioned, many do. You would be surprised how many people attempt to use it as a valid source. My wife used to tell me there were constant reprimands by the professors to students in her MBA who attempted to use it as a source. Also, there are numerous contests within wiki that leads to arguments over validation and yet often neither contest appropriately supports their contest in a manner to validate it.
Wiki is a source for information, not validated information. It could be wrong, it could be right, or it could simply be someones subjective interpretation on a subject. Thats fine for topical discussions without a requirement of validation and useful for some technical sources for various purposes, but as a form of informing ones self properly on a subject in and how it concerns legitimacy, it is a poor source.
Certainly it would be wrong to cite wikipedia directly in a formal setting, but most wiki articles have a bibliography.
It's still a great research tool, even if it shouldn't be a source per se.
I believe the world doesn't give us enough to believe in.
So we should look to any possible source of guidance to help us through the messy morass of life.
If Wikipedia does it for you, lovely. If the Church of Scientology is your preference, lovely too.
But it seems these two sources are in something of a credibility saber fight, one in which Wikipedia has dealt the church a wounding swipe.
In a decision that will concern some in Los Angeles, the online encyclopedia has decided to ban all changes to the site made by IP addresses owned or operated by the church and its associates.
The decision shows that Wikipedia's arbitrators were anything but arbitrary. They noted around 430 articles concerning the Church of Scientology and described "persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources on multiple articles."
There's plenty of sources of truth about the so-called "church" of Scientology online.
You don't need to rely on Wiki to find it. They can't zap around every website online to change the truth contained there.
And Wiki should absolutely have a way to control the content on their site.
I've seen pages hijacked with bizarre content and that's the main reason why the info from wiki can't be considered a credible source. Too many hands involved.
I think Wiki should reign in on who can post on their site. It started out as a good idea for free exchanges of information but in the end, it's out of control.
I believe the world doesn't give us enough to believe in.
So we should look to any possible source of guidance to help us through the messy morass of life.
If Wikipedia does it for you, lovely. If the Church of Scientology is your preference, lovely too.
But it seems these two sources are in something of a credibility saber fight, one in which Wikipedia has dealt the church a wounding swipe.
In a decision that will concern some in Los Angeles, the online encyclopedia has decided to ban all changes to the site made by IP addresses owned or operated by the church and its associates.
The decision shows that Wikipedia's arbitrators were anything but arbitrary. They noted around 430 articles concerning the Church of Scientology and described "persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources on multiple articles."
Penthouse interview with L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien240.htmln - broken link)
"Scientology and all the other cults are one-dimensional, and we live in a three-dimensional world. Cults are as dangerous as drugs. They commit the highest crime: the rape of the soul." L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
On December 5, 1995, Lisa McPherson was dead on arrival at a hospital 45 minutes north of Clearwater Florida. According to the coroner's report, Lisa was underweight, severely dehydrated, and had bruises and bug bites. Scientologists chose to pass three hospitals en route to New Port Richey Hospital, where Scientologist Dr. David Minkoff was on duty. They could have gone to Morton Plant Hospital, only six minutes away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
