|
No doubt one would need to fact check a Wiki entry vs than an actual encyclopedia, but that's not what's been going on here. Tim has simply been attacking the information in it in lieu of presenting his own evidence, or for that matter bothering to look into whether or not the things I posted from it were accurate.
I actually said at one point, "is that or is that not accurate?" The proof that Tim didn't even bother to read it is that it was indeed inaccurate, not because of Wiki but because the Turtle island he was referencing was not the same one I came up with in my search. So he's just skimming and slinging mud and you're defending him on the grounds that Wiki isn't as reliable in some sense as a hardbound copy of Encycolpedia Britanica on your desk.
Well, surprise of surprises, I already understood that too. I just find the fact that people think a piece of paper from a university is the measure of intelligence need a wake up call, and the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are quite accurate, and they do have a system in place for fact checking. It is peer reviewed in that sense, it is simply not the same group of people who are deemed "peers", and academics seem to hate that, and I love every minute of it.
It is always extremely disconcerting to me, and weakens my faith in mankind, when someone like Tim just goes off and normally decent people just sort of stand by and watch.
There's no excuse for what eventually became of this thread.
|