[brennan.jamesp]

Originally Posted by Marsupial

Yeah, that's how I feel about it.

Tend to use it to get quick info on films, bands or mindless trivia (list of generic product names was surprisingly intriguing).

It also taught me the name of the sex act 'Lucky Pierre', which I deeply regret not taking as a username.

If I am on there trying to uncover decent info I tend to follow whatever sources the articles list and whatever links they have.

You made me look up 'lucky pierre' you bastard

[AmericaOverAll]

Wikipedia gets a bad rap. Most serious subjects are well researched and added with warnings that some of this might be disputed/controversial and what not. I think it is just about the best source around. What single source/site is better?

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by AmericaOverAll

Wikipedia gets a bad rap. Most serious subjects are well researched and added with warnings that some of this might be disputed/controversial and what not. I think it is just about the best source around. What single source/site is better?

I agree. It tends to be well researched and neutral. It's not as though academic sources are better -- they tend to be somewhat better researched (tho certainly not always) but are usually far, far less neutral.

[TheSweetScience]

you need not go further in your search for the reliability of wikipedia than looking at the wikipedia entry on the reliablility of wikipedia:

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mr. Omoplata]

Originally Posted by Matt

I'd be more inclined to cite sources like credible mainstream media, academia, government surveys, etc.

Credible "mainstream" media? Is there even such a thing?

I also wouldn't trust any government controlled and/or regulated surveys neither because that's a crap shoot in itself.

The best source could be academia, but again to dispute the credibility of the source, how "up-to-date" are those things anyways? We're constantly refining and learning new things from previously thought-to-be-certain things from the past. It just doesn't help when certain academic research articles are months, years or even decades old.


The point being, nothing can really be considered a solid source because everything is questionable.

We have to simply trust our own judgment in matters that require evidence.

[enginekid]

You are absolutely right. Wikipedia is a great instant source for deeper information on a subject. If I was posting in a thread here about some MMA fighter like Kenflo and needed to know his hometown, i could probably get that from Wikipedia and would have no qualms about assuming it's correct.

If you were writing reports for University or doing research for a publication it is unacceptable in most cases to cite internet sources as your references. You cannot rely on it as you have no evidence that its factual. Most Wiki's fortunately have links to more "official" sites about the page in question.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Omoplata

Credible "mainstream" media? Is there even such a thing?

I also wouldn't trust any government controlled and/or regulated surveys neither because that's a crap shoot in itself.

The best source could be academia, but again to dispute the credibility of the source, how "up-to-date" are those things anyways? We're constantly refining and learning new things from previously thought-to-be-certain things from the past. It just doesn't help when certain academic research articles are months, years or even decades old.


The point being, nothing can really be considered a solid source because everything is questionable.

We have to simply trust our own judgment in matters that require evidence.

You pulled one line out of my post, so you quoted me out of context. I acknowledged that you could make the case for bias in almost any source. But if this is so, why even bother citing sources at all in support of your posts? I think the point is we have to look for sources that provide the most objective, accurate facts. And I'm not so sure an open site that can be edited by anyone with no credentials is the ideal authority in all cases.

[NoFreeSpeech]

I have written an article or two and edited some (mostly for spelling errors and grammar), but I have to say that its biggest downfall are the ridiculous people who admin that place. Corrupt, petty and power hungry people who could care less about the encyclopedia itself.

[DaRuckus337]

Wikipedia is good as a stand-alone source for many things (science, medicine, technology, non-controversial history, etc.) and a good starting-point for other things (more controversial issues of history and geopolitics). I love it, and use it for something on a daily basis (usually medical stuff, but also casual interests and even some WR issues).

[Titus001]

The Roman empire wiki source was legit until someone had to edit the "fall" date. It was perfect with 27BC-1453AD. Some turd edited the date to 476AD. That is the correct date of the fall of the western side of the empire but the eastern Roman empire continued for another 1,000 years. I added my complaints to this wrong edit of history!
What, If Anything, Is A Byzantine?

As you can see we have many disagreements.

Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what I said in the edit wiki page for the roman empire.

What, If Anything, Is A Byzantine?

Whoever is changing the fall of the Roman empire to 1453 AD please keep it up. No need for the outdated date of 476AD when the eastern side survived for another 1000 years and continued to call themselves ROMAN! Byzantines= Romans. "The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine I, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the Eternal City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived."

How do I edit the true date of the fall of the Roman Empire?

What, If Anything, Is A Byzantine?