Un-Reliable Wikipedia?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I can't see how that works. I'm responsible for the claims they make? So much for the self-responsibility they bang on about.

 

 

 

I did find this bit rather amusing:

 

Manifestations of Atheism

 

 

 

There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:

 

 

 

* Militant atheism which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in Communist countries.

 

* Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, believing that God does not exist.

 

* Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, living as though God does not exist.

 

That's right you Atheists, and there's enough of you here - you're all pseudo-Marxist Commies really...

[warri0r45]

Wow. Conservapedia is just incredible. :lol:

 

 

 

Comparing the pages on Obama and McCain is just hilarious. "The trustworthy encyclopedia" sounds suspiciously like some other slogan I've heard before... something like "fair and balanced," I think.

[SupportMage]

Don't worry guys, we have a Sophomore at my school who's an admin and he makes sure the vandals get banned. I cite a speech he gave to a teacher on why Wiki was reliable.

 

 

 

But yes, I do use it on papers. I havn't encountered a problem with it yet. :

[oegly41]

Well, it you're just critical to the content, Wikipedia is just fine. I see errors in Wikipedia just as often as I see errors in other media (relative to how much I use the different types of media, of course).

 

 

 

Most of my teachers disapprove Wikipedia, while some say that the quality control is so good that it's a quite reliable source. I was arguing with my friend of whether pepper is a fruit or a vegetable. Wikipedia agreed with me. A minute later, my friend told me to refresh the page, which now said nothing more than "IT R VEGETABLE LOLS".

 

 

 

I doubt how serious Conservapedia is, when they scare people away with an image of Sarah Palin on the front page. :ohnoes: