Jump to content


Photo

Internet Sources Like Wiki


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 June 2009 - 11:27 AM

Since my experience with the wikipedia, I have had no desire to use them. That was 3 years ago. If they have cleaned up their act, more power to them. However, I did at one time, have a page on my website addressing the issue of religious bias on the wikipedia. I removed it a few weeks later because of the hate e-mail and threats from those same people from the wikipedia. You have no idea what I went through over an edit.

I was more or less told that my comments were not welcome there because of what I believed. And that anything I posted would be deleted.

Now, would not that piss you off?

I would expect that on the evowiki if I were stupid enough to try being an editor. just as they would trying to be one for the creation wiki. The hate continued for a year even though I never went back to edit anything.

A whole evo-wiki page was done over the whole incident. Accusing me of several things, even made up stuff. Now is that not taking it a little overboard? And for what reason? Because they loved evolution and hated any Christian who dared to put anything to do with God in a positive light.

And I have only told you half of all that happened. Now do you understand?

I did what an editor is supposed to do. Where did "I" go wrong? No where. Did I even deserve what happened? Till this day not one of those from there can say what rule I broke. It was nothing more than their hate for every Christian due to what they believed, and nothing else. Themhaving to make up stuff proves they lied and knew it. To justify their deed, they had to lie.

Since these people were the representation of the wikipedia, and no one offered any help. This told me that 100% of my efforts would be for nothing. And to their glee, I left.

#42 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 June 2009 - 03:06 PM

Rather than complaining CTD, why don't you offer something to the conversation? If you don't like my definitions, then give us some of your own. Lets face it, if we can't agree on definitions then we'll never solve any of the problems.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

Definitions? I'm guessing you need to use the term 'criteria'; at least that would make sense. I haven't disputed definitions.

If you want to show me that wiki is inaccurate and biased, compare it to another encyclopedia. If they don't match then you have a case. But your own personal opinions have no place in this debate (and neither do mine).

Regards,

Arch.

There are plenty of ways inaccuracy can be demonstrated. This is a rather poor one. For example, a source which contradicts itself needs no outside evidence whatsoever to be shown inaccurate. Yet you attempted to restrict the methods. Ikester already said his piece on that, and it's pretty obvious stuff really.

How much sense would it make for me to demand that you show me a more accurate bible before I'll even consider any criticism against the one I use? I won't consider internal consistency, accurate and inaccurate history, or any other flaw until you demonstrate that you have a more accurate bible. :rolleyes:

At the top of most (I think all, but I haven't verified it) wiki articles, there are tabs labled "history" and "discussion". At present, it is possible to research what's been going on, and it isn't pretty.

Another tip-off is the fact that conclusions from talkdeceptions, without any supporting evidence at all, are being included as settled facts. Other extremely unreliable sources are used in the same manner.

Actually. Talkdeceptions itself is better than wiki in this respect - at least they try to provide supporting argumentation rather than simply declaring "so-and-so has thoroughly debunked such-and-such creation argument" left and right. It's the kind of crud one expects in the response portion of blogs, and wiki is presently full of it. It is not the result of random incompetent individuals, either. It is the result of policy. Those people fear the truth (and with good reason).

#43 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 June 2009 - 03:09 PM

I would expect that on the evowiki if I were stupid enough to try being an editor. just as they would trying to be one for the creation wiki. The hate continued for a year even though I never went back to edit anything.

View Post

I almost forgot about them. Evowiki is practically an anachronism now. Wikipedia has taken over their role.

#44 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2009 - 04:35 PM

Definitions? I'm guessing you need to use the term 'criteria'; at least that would make sense. I haven't disputed definitions.

There are plenty of ways inaccuracy can be demonstrated. This is a rather poor one. For example, a source which contradicts itself needs no outside evidence whatsoever to be shown inaccurate. Yet you attempted to restrict the methods. Ikester already said his piece on that, and it's pretty obvious stuff really.

How much sense would it make for me to demand that you show me a more accurate bible before I'll even consider any criticism against the one I use? I won't consider internal consistency, accurate and inaccurate history, or any other flaw until you demonstrate that you have a more accurate bible.  :rolleyes:

At the top of most (I think all, but I haven't verified it) wiki articles, there are tabs labled "history" and "discussion". At present, it is possible to research what's been going on, and it isn't pretty.

Another tip-off is the fact that conclusions from talkdeceptions, without any supporting evidence at all, are being included as settled facts. Other extremely unreliable sources are used in the same manner.

Actually. Talkdeceptions itself is better than wiki in this respect - at least they try to provide supporting argumentation rather than simply declaring "so-and-so has thoroughly debunked such-and-such creation argument" left and right. It's the kind of crud one expects in the response portion of blogs, and wiki is presently full of it. It is not the result of random incompetent individuals, either. It is the result of policy. Those people fear the truth (and with good reason).

View Post



You raise some excellent points there CTD. Inconsistency with itself would certainly show inaccuracy. Now if you can show me some of these inconsistency we'll be well on our way.

Regards,

Arch.

#45 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2009 - 04:52 PM

Since my experience with the wikipedia, I have had no desire to use them. That was 3 years ago. If they have cleaned up their act, more power to them. However, I did at one time, have a page on my website addressing the issue of religious bias on the wikipedia. I removed it a few weeks later because of the hate e-mail and threats from those same people from the wikipedia. You have no idea what I went through over an edit.

I was more or less told that my comments were not welcome there because of what I believed. And that anything I posted would be deleted.

Now, would not that piss you off?

I would expect that on the evowiki if I were stupid enough to try being an editor. just as they would trying to be one for the creation wiki. The hate continued for a year even though I never went back to edit anything.

A whole evo-wiki page was done over the whole incident. Accusing me of several things, even made up stuff. Now is that not taking it a little overboard? And for what reason? Because they loved evolution and hated any Christian who dared to put anything to do with God in a positive light.

And I have only told you half of all that happened. Now do you understand?

I did what an editor is supposed to do. Where did "I" go wrong? No where. Did I even deserve what happened? Till this day not one of those from there can say what rule I broke. It was nothing more than their hate for every Christian due to what they believed, and nothing else. Themhaving to make up stuff proves they lied and knew it. To justify their deed, they had to lie.

Since these people were the representation of the wikipedia, and no one offered any help. This told me that 100% of my efforts would be for nothing. And to their glee, I left.

View Post


My sympathies ikester, you have obviously been through a lot and I agree that you have been unfairly treated.
The problem is that this only proves that some of the people at wiki (3 years ago) are jerks. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you wrong.

I hope you don't interpret this the wrong way ikester, because I do feel for you. I just don't think this proves anything :rolleyes:

Regards,

Arch.

#46 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 June 2009 - 09:55 PM

My sympathies ikester, you have obviously been through a lot and I agree that you have been unfairly treated.
The problem is that this only proves that some of the people at wiki (3 years ago) are jerks. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you wrong.
I hope you don't interpret this the wrong way ikester, because I do feel for you. I just don't think this proves anything :(

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


And you say this because of what? Because you defend your peers and think they can do no wrong. Jerks are not wrong when the jerks do it to people you disagree with.

What you pulled here was a softening tactic. What you really thought was what I bolded.

The problem is that this only proves that some of the people at wiki (3 years ago) are jerks. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you wrong.


The rest was put there to soften the effect of what you really think. I have been doing this long enough to be able to read between the lines. What you demonstrated here is what is the main problem with your side of the issue. People do wrong, and some how because the people they do it to "deserve" it just because they disagree with your world view, it's okay and they are not really wrong.

Are you really sympathizing? No. That one statement where you clarified that what they did as jerks does not make them wrong, pretty much cancels everything else you said. If you were sincere in your statement, there would have been "zero" defense for the jerks. But because they agree with what you believe, you felt an unconscious need to defend them regardless of what they did. Don't you see the problem?

Your side often makes fun of our side because some say they do things in the name of God. What did those people do and in what name did they do it in? Evolution. And what made you want to defend them in same manner as you did? Evolution.

You see when you contradict yourself so badly and knowingly, it shows that you also knew what you were doing when you did it. You cover for what you really thought was trying to "look" like you felt sorry for what happened. Your real thoughts were to justify the action of your peers.

So yes I do take offense. But you broke no rules and I do not ban people just because I disagree with them, contrary to popular belief among your peers.

Let's take H*vind for a second as an example of how far evolution takes people in hate. What if tomarrow it was reported that someone killed H*vind in jail? Now what would be the majority response from your peers? How many would throw a party? How many would dance on his grave? And for no other reason than.... Evolution.

So basically evolutionists hate other people based on the sole purpose that they disagree and nothing else. If not, name ten reasons why evolutionists hate H*vind that has nothing to do with Evolution?

#47 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 June 2009 - 10:36 PM

What you pulled here was a softening tactic.

View Post


This is true, but being a tactic doesn't make it insincere.

I came here with the intention of learning to understand how the 'other side' thinks. I have no interest in upsetting anyone. I can also see where this conversation will inevitably end up.

If someone wants to continue this discussion by providing some differing articles, or as CTD said, an article that contradicts itself I'd be appreciative. Otherwise I think I would rather bow out of this one for now.

Respectfully,

Arch.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2009 - 09:12 AM

I almost forgot about them. Evowiki is practically an anachronism now. Wikipedia has taken over their role.

View Post



And reasons like this is why I always say "go to the source" not some watered down and stepped on opinionated sight that will only allow certain input.

At The Historicity Of Jesus And Of The New Testament you’ll find examples of some who will use specious and late dated opinion to refute the authentic historical writings. And, as I have said many times before; if you stick to the source, and corroborating evidences, it’s easy to toss out the chaff of ignorance.

#49 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 06:57 PM

And reasons like this is why I always say "go to the source" not some watered down and stepped on opinionated sight that will only allow certain input.

At The Historicity Of Jesus And Of The New Testament you’ll find examples of some who will use specious and late dated opinion to refute the authentic historical writings. And, as I have said many times before; if you stick to the source, and corroborating evidences, it’s easy to toss out the chaff of ignorance.

View Post


What I find interesting is the forum you linked (last I checked) had no wikipedia links associated with it. Still, I look forward to you supplying the evidence I asked for, where Wikipedia either contradicts itself or is contradicted by another encyclopedia.

Regards,

Arch.

#50 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 01 July 2009 - 12:00 PM

This link came up in another thread:

http://news.cnet.com..._3-5997332.html

I personally use Wiki a lot. I use it for generic data, and often, I enjoy using it as an antagonistic witness.

Many people (though this is decreasing as the web gets more sophisticated) like to say how you can't trust anything on the internet. However, since when is the information in books any more credible?

Are sources the key to finding truth or is approach and mindset more relevant?

I would like this thread to be a place to discuss the reliability of sources and also how to approach sources whether they are considered trustworthy or not.

View Post



I use wiki for maths a lot. When I can't remember and identity or some integral solution or something. For some things I trust it. I actually know a disgruntled mathematician who has a real problem of lurking wiki for math errors and correcting them instead of doing real work.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users