|
Posted by Warm Worm on January 13, 2008, 12:47 am
++ wrote:
>
>
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Rarely do I cite Wikipedia, and rarely do I read them, because
>>>> something
>>>> doesn't seem quite right about that place, can't quite put my finger
>>>> on it.
>>>>
>>
>> heheh
>> Let's see..what's wrong with Wikipedia...? Aside from the troubling
>> plethora of facts, one ignoramus can't hijack it.
>>
>> (I once contributed a bit of clean-up editing in it. It was easier to
>> do than I would have thought, and I made a couple of interesting
>> acquaintances. I think it's an absolutely inspiring project.)
>>
> I think we all should conribute what we can, a piece of editing, an
> article, even something that ends with a note that it is waiting
> verification or editing. It sure beats blogs on subjects that people
> are using these days as if they had soem basis in fact or verifiability
> when they are only opinion. The Wiki has that verifiability and every
> article can be challenged for lack of the same..
As I might have said before on here about Wikipedia, it's new and
evolving. Articles can be edited, argued about, accordingly edited and
frozen, etc..
Many also come with links, references and bibliography, so, and IOW,
when an article is cited here for example, cross-references are often
built-in.
But it's up to the intrepid student of life and truth, of course, to
click, scroll, read and research, etc.
Failing that, I guess one can always stoop to derogative commentary that
includes "retarded" and "soiled panties", and see how many dictionary
entries it makes, and under which subjects.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap