I dont use Wikipedia that much, like I said, I’m a visual thinker, but I do really appreciate the folksy feel to it, much like learning so much about life through the narrative and wisdom I get by sitting down and having dinner with my mom once a week.
Rigorous academic articles and texts are great if your mind absorbes the world that way.
But as I’ve said before, often, and almost always for someone like me, theres more reality and learning in the stories people tell about themselves, or in the art they create with them.
So whats there to argue about? Surely we get what we need where we find it.
Main articles: Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Citing Wikipedia
As a wiki, articles are never complete. They are continually edited and improved over time, and in general this results in an upward trend of quality, and a growing consensus over a fair and balanced representation of information.
Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start, and may contain false or debatable information. Indeed, many articles start their lives as partisan, and it is after a long process of discussion, debate and argument, that they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus. Others may for a while become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint which can take some time  months perhaps  to extricate themselves and regain a better balanced consensus. In part, this is because Wikipedia operates an internal resolution process when editors cannot agree on content and approach, and such issues take time to come to the attention of more experienced editors.
The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge. An increasing number of articles reach this standard over time, and many already have. However, this is a process and can take months or years to be achieved, as each user adds their contribution in turn. Some articles contain statements and claims which have not yet been fully cited. Others will later have entire new sections added. Some information will be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded, and may be removed or expounded.
While the overall trend is generally upward, it is important to use Wikipedia carefully if it is intended to be used as a research source, since individual articles will, by their nature, vary in standard and maturity. There are guidelines and information pages designed to help users and researchers do this effectively, and an article that summarizes third-party studies and assessments of the reliability of Wikipedia.
Funnily enough I was always pretty sure you preferred Goebbels to Hitler…
Even to the extent of emulating his style of writing and…er…propaganda, as far as I can see, (allowing for translation)
Let’s try again. Today, I am very patient with the intellectually less
endowed …:o))
Wikipedia does not claim to be a “folksy learning source”. It claims to be
an
encyclopedia. That’s why it’s a scam: claiming to be what it most definitely
is not:
----- Original Message -----
From: “thephoenix101” npd-cpt6626@lists.careplace.com
To: palma@unet.com.mk
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [npd] An Oprah writer wants your N stories!
"How do you know that they are "credible links and publications"?"
I hope most of us are becoming more media savy and learning to think critically.
At least our kids are being taught about 'critical thinking' in college now since it's essential for everyone to hone discernment skills. With the Internet's overload of information at everyone's fingertips, we need to learn how to sort through a sea of opinions...and maybe bullshite, too.
We're smart folks, though. We can sort out opinions from facts. (Though even 'facts' can change over time.)
----- Original Message -----
From: “mamolie” npd-cpt6626@lists.careplace.com
To: palma@unet.com.mk
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [npd] An Oprah writer wants your N stories!
In my first incarnation, as a Wunderkind, I was a mathematical physicist
(topology).
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: “mercenary” npd-cpt6626@lists.careplace.com
To: palma@unet.com.mk
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [npd] An Oprah writer wants your N stories!
How do you know it would be a waste of time, if you haven’t read it?
I thought you knew your FORMAL LOGIC…:o))
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: “mercenary” npd-cpt6626@lists.careplace.com
To: palma@unet.com.mk
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [npd] An Oprah writer wants your N stories!
----- Original Message -----
From: “thephoenix101” npd-cpt6626@lists.careplace.com
To: palma@unet.com.mk
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [npd] An Oprah writer wants your N stories!
Actually it’s not THAT bad…the continuity sux (as if he has changed his mind about the plot and headed of in a totally new direction a couple of times), there are some SERIOUS “outtakes” (not least because NOBODY should ever use David Irving as a source), and anything that passes for a “love interest” episode would put you to sleep on cocaine (and HEY! Insomniacs have needs too.)
On the whole I found it very…revealing…but I don’t think he’ll finish it, hasn’t added a word in months…I suspect it served whateber purpose he intended it to and he got bored…
Mein Kampf is pretty interesting too, the big surprise is that Hitler is so…well…“chummy”…last thing you expect. You expect it will all be written in Samvakkian high gothic camp…and instead, it’s more like my Swiss ex trying to be cute and cuddly…
