A wiki page is supposed to be a page of information unless other wise stated. The page I tried to edit was information about YEC. There was no debate going on. But they did have some wrong information that I was trying to correct. Stuff like: All YECs believe the earth is flat. Stupid stuff like that. Might as well said we all wear tin foil hats.
If this is indeed the case then there is something amiss and I would support your right to write in correct details. If it makes you feel any better I checked the entry for YEC and (with a quick search) I'm pretty sure it no longer says this. Hopefully it stays this way.
(I did a search for 'flat' which returned nothing).
If you want to believe that the wikis are all golden and have 100% truth, that's your opinion.
I'm not quite sure where this came from...have you read any of my other posts? On at least one occasion I've specifically said that wiki is not 100% accurate; neither is any other encyclopedia.
The question I'd like to ask is whether or not people consider Britannica to be accurate, despite not being 100% accurate. If you consider Britannica accurate, why not wiki? If Britannica is inaccurate, then who do we trust?
I don't have to agree wth you s quit sounding like I have to. You are not the wiki police. And one more thing. If you consider your self a free thinker,then why is it so important to control the thoughts of others? Or is free thinking only within the realm that you dictate?
You seem to have forgotten this is a debate; one party presents evidence to convince the other party of their opinions. That's what I and everybody else here has been doing. My apologies if I've come across too aggressive. I freely admit I am passionate about this opinion.
It would not be anything you would see or accept. And you would get a laugh with your lurker buddies about how you made me spend time looking up such evidence that you had no mind to look at and consider anyway. So no I'm not getting caught up in you little game. Waste someone else's time.
ikester, in this forum I'm trying to distance myself from the actual content of encyclopedias (which I may have a biased opinion on) and argue over the accuracy of said content. The only way I can think to discern whether an article is inaccurate (without letting my own bias get in the way) is to compare it to other sources.
In which case I would happily accept any information you can present. I will do my best to ignore my own bias and address it for what it is. "It" in this case would be a discrepancy between two encyclopedic articles.
In your next post you wrote:
I suggest that if you do not like what is being said in this thread, that you don't post in it. Because it seems you are trying to pick a fight. I can understand your defense of a wiki because you have never had a negitive experience. But if you are going to try and control other responces because you disagree, then I'll have to close the thread. Would you prefer that?
Again, my apologies if I have come across too strong. I just don't see the point in complaining about a situation unless you are willing to do something about it.
To my knowledge Wikipedia (for the most part) agrees with other respected encyclopedias. Therefore to disagree with Wiki means to disagree with these other respected sources. If someone can show that wiki does not correlate with another respected encyclopedia then there is a good chance wiki has a fault. If someone can think of a better way of finding unbiased inaccuracies let me know and I'll happily change my definition.