73819226
97727e69
From: your.name@isp.com

In article
, Duggy
 wrote:

> On Jul 23, 7:25=A0am, "Your Name"  wrote:
> > That in itself makes any "results" hopelessly inaccurate. The so-called
> > survey looked at a tiny number of pages and then pretends it means
> > anything about all the rest of the pages by spouting manipulated
> > statistics. :-\
>
> The magazine took a number of pages (large number, but tiny
> percentage, sure) on a topic of relevance to themselves and made a
> claim about those pages.  The magazine made no claim about the rest of
> the pages.
>
> Once again, you're fighting a strawman argument.

You brought up the magazine's survey in an attempt to prove that Wikipedia
is accurate ... all it "proves" is that the few pages they looked at were
accurate at the moment they looked at them, but could easily have had
garbage posted seconds later.




> > > scientific articles on Wikipedia and found that they are just as
> > > accurate as an encyclopedia. Sure stupid changes are made, but they're
> > > usually fixed pretty quick.
> >
> > Meanwhile thousands of people have read the page and blindly believed
> > that stupid change is indeed a fact.
>
> Thousands in minutes?  Blindly believed as fact?
>
> Use hyperbola much?

The average human being is incredibly stupid and gullible ... how else
could so many email scams work so well.  :-\




> > Real encyclopedia are checked by experts ... not other random knob-head
> > Internet users claiming to be "experts". :-\
>
> Experts make mistakes.  Experts have biases.
>
> I was listening to a radio programme about the the Oxford Companion to
> the Book, and the editor said outright that he had to trust his
> experts because he didn't have knowledge of every subject his work
> covered.
>
> Wikipedia isn't perfect.  Nothing is.  But pretending that something
> must be wrong just because it is in wikipedia is crazy.

The real experts will easily be much more accurate than a bunch of dozy
Internet users. As before, there are far too many poeple who think they're
being funny / clever posting garbage to such websites as well as naive
people posting rubbish believing it to be true.




> > And yet fools post information from there as though it was accurate proof
> > of something ...
>
> No, people post information as information.  Fool things they think it
> is proof of something.
>
> > quite simply it's not.
>
> No one said it was.

Then why waste everybody's time referencing the near-useless website.   :-\




> > At one point even the guy who "invented" it said it wasn't accurate.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > IMDB is exactly the same - information supplied by fools on the
> > Internet and not properly checked.
>
> Agreed.  At one stage I added the films of Troy McClure to prove just
> that point and they stayed for over 3 months.

> > IBList.com is a better way. Information about books is posted by
> > users, but is actually CHECKED before being made live.
>
> Actually, so it IMDB.

It can't be since you admitted to posting garbage just above. If it was
properly checked, then that would never have made it to a live webpage.




> > No doubt it still has inaccuracies (humans are falliable), but far
> > fewer than the likes of Wikipedia and IMDB.
>
> Proof?
>
> How do we know that the checkers aren't manipulating the information?
> How do we know they are experts?

As before, there are far too many poeple who think they're being funny /
clever posting garbage to websites like Wikipedia as well as naive people
posting rubbish believing it to be true.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)