This is why Wikipedia is not scholarly

[Alias]

I haven't used it for a few years now. It's corrupt.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism

[Mister D]

Never use it for anything controversial. It's actually quite good otherwise.

[MMC]

As for O'Brien, she has yet to correct the record, and attacked Pollak for an entire segment in her Monday show, leading even sympathetic media critics to mock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/cnns-obrien-goes-for-a-do-over/2012/03/12/gIQAFEVY7R_blog.html) her attempted "do-over." She has asked angry viewers to "stop tweeting" her about the subject.....snip~

I never cared for Soledad.....she is always creating racial issues with the way she goes about talking, reporting, and describing racial issues. Constantly she is harping about being Black and Cuban. That this is her whole reason fro getting involved into such.

I say give her the news to report on. Thats it. She don't need to time to expound on all her feeling and what motivates her. Basically to keep her opinions to herself. Report the news and then STFU!

But I like how they all loved Twitter in the beginning. Now she don't want people tweeting her, when they disagree with what she says. Like that double standard.....huh?

[Mister D]

Or put a white person on who engages in the same kind of rhetoric but from a pro-white stance.

[Chris]

As to wikipedia, it's a good first source, but serious research would go to sources.

What I like about it is it's written bottom up, no one's in charge, everyone has a chance to contribute, sort of like a forum.

[MMC]

Or put a white person on who engages in the same kind of rhetoric but from a pro-white stance.

Face it.....they fear discussing it from that way. It's like they fear the Hyperborians are going to return with their Varkus Priest-Kings to lay scourage to all. :wink:

[Mister D]

Wikipedia can be very misleading even for sourced claims.

I'll have to watch the Soledad segment in its entirety. I hear she made quite a fool of herself.

[Alias]

Soldout O'Brian is just another race hustler who will use race to make a career. She's done well with her "Black in America" and other race-based programs.

[Chris]

Misleading, or disagreeable to one's opinions? Even sources can be both. Example: Argue with a lib about whether fascism is left or right wing. Wiki can be cited either way, and each has sources who go each way. What's correct is not what wiki or a source says is right, but the argument presented. So and so says this and he's a recognized scholar--so, unless what he says makes sense, it's merely appeal to authority.

[Mister D]

Misleading, or disagreeable to one's opinions? Even sources can be both. Example: Argue with a lib about whether fascism is left or right wing. Wiki can be cited either way, and each has sources who go each way. What's correct is not what wiki or a source says is right, but the argument presented. So and so says this and he's a recognized scholar--so, unless what he says makes sense, it's merely appeal to authority.


Certainly.

[RollingWave]

Never use it for anything controversial. It's actually quite good otherwise.

yeah, it really depend on particular topic, for most non-political stuff it's good enough though, sometimes even better than real encyclopedias due to the fact that it's very up to date.

[Mister D]

yeah, it really depend on particular topic, for most non-political stuff it's good enough though, sometimes even better than real encyclopedias due to the fact that it's very up to date.

Good point. It's updated regularly.

[Alias]

You need to be careful with Wiki on political facts. Lots of moonbats will edit.

[Mister D]

You need to be careful with Wiki on political facts. Lots of moonbats will edit.

I wouldn't bother with Wiki in that case. When it comes to certain subjects it's not worthwhile.