mrjizzbomber wrote:EminemBase wrote:Now we all know your opinion on Wiki as a source ('wiki is not a source')
That is by no means an 'opinion'.
Citing Wikipedia is analogous to citing your rambling grandmother.
No, it very much is an opinion.
There may be some spurious information on Wiki but it usually disappears within time. Due to its collective nature, things get corrected. Steven Pinker also compared the English language to Wiki. Well, all language. Saying human language was the "first Wiki". Technically it shouldn't work and there are no set rules, despite arrogant 'language enthusiasts' trying to correct people all the time (I do it on here to bug people) - But in reality, all language is a collective effort that's fueled by an evolutionary need to communicate.
Similarly you get a lot of slang, miss-use and
nonsense within language. But that doesn't immediately make the language itself invalid. It's upto you to spot it's validity and you can decide which version(s) you choose to take part in.
Wiki is natured similarly. Even Richard Dawkins said he was shocked by the accuracy of the biology pages. On the less-popular or more... Celebrity-orientated pages you get a lot of rumour but things get dwindled down and facts get put straight. The correct overturn the incorrect. So yes,
IT IS A SOURCE. People who look at things with face-value and think they're being clever by denouncing Wiki don't actually understand the nature of it.
They know not what they mock. It wouldn't be as big as it is and have connected like it has if was literally a worthless rumour-mill.
(
and to anyone who goes on the page and writes something about me or something about themselves and then posts it here trying to illustrate the point they can add things... Yes, well done. We get that you can do that. You're missing the true point.)