|
|
« on: November 22, 2007, 05:24PM » |
|
I don't know if anyone has noticed but Wikipedia has updated information on Mairead.
|
|
|
Logged
|
TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH....FOREVER FRIENDS
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2007, 09:29PM » |
|
Awesome! Thanks for the link Kim.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2007, 07:18AM » |
|
does anybody actually believe what they read in wikipedia?
|
|
|
Logged
|
John
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2007, 07:44AM » |
|
does anybody actually believe what they read in wikipedia?
It depends on the article.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2007, 08:59AM » |
|
I did not post this for her birthdate but for the info on her schooling. I don't care how old anyone is because I don't want anyone to know how old I am. It's a private matter.
Sorry I posted this. I think I've had enough of postings for a long time.
|
|
|
Logged
|
TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH....FOREVER FRIENDS
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2007, 09:01AM » |
|
does anybody actually believe what they read in wikipedia?
Actually, they've done studies where they took the Encyclopedia Britannica and compared random articles to Wikipedia and in almost every case Wikipedia was as accurate or more up to date. aislin
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2007, 09:18AM » |
|
Yes. Almost. Now....define almost......as in almost always tells the truth....but.....sometime does not tell the truth. Otherwise: Wikipedia is a part-time liar? btw....who is the "they" that did those studies? Wikipedia?
|
|
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 09:20AM by JByrd »
|
Logged
|
John
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2007, 10:45AM » |
|
The study was conducted by Nature, a UK journal. It compared 42 science articles and found that Wikipedia had 4 errors per article compared to Britannica's 3. However, Wikipedia's articles were, on average, 2.6 times longer then Britanica's. So Wikipedia's rate of error was actually less.
aislin
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2007, 11:35AM » |
|
Well, maybe, but I've come across quite a couple of mistakes on Wikipedia, and that is why I don't rely on it when needing information. There are so many other website which provide sufficient information as well.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2007, 11:50AM » |
|
Well, aislin, the science articles are more rigorously examined by experts. Articles on celebrities are often riddled with myths (started either by the stars or their enemies), and opinion (both glowing and criticizing) because there are few "experts" with verifiable data. Most material on public figures is not footnoted because if it were it would be from Us magazine, Entertainment Tonight, and promotional materials.
Interestingly, any facts that come directly from a celebrity or from their employers (film studio, record label, etc.) are considered original sourcing and are considered suspect by Wikipedia. Because many publicists tend to fudge things, ALL official material gets treated as potentially false. Supposedly, only things confirmed by second parties are allowed to stay on Wikipedia, although in celebrity articles it may go unnoticed or unchallenged for a long, long time.
For this reason, anytime a CW fan tries to post the fact that Lisa is expecting again, it is deleted because supposedly it hasn't been stated by any other source than Lisa and CW.com!
|
|
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 06:20PM by jsharp1701 »
|
Logged
|
“You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” - Anne Lamott
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2007, 04:26PM » |
|
Think again. She needs to go to a place where she needs it out if it happens instantly.
|
|
|
Logged
|
LOOK OUT! ROGUE ROBOTS!
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2007, 05:54AM » |
|
Well said, Kimberly!
|
|
|
Logged
|
John
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2007, 07:32AM » |
|
Not well said but really OK.
|
|
|
Logged
|
LOOK OUT! ROGUE ROBOTS!
|
|
|
|
|