i beleive it is a bunch or horse#%^& and people should not use it because it is usally not true unless it has been checked my the web and confirmed.

There; would you prefer this kind of wikipedia?

But w/e. This will be deleted, surely.

no offense but its for nerds in my opinion. ( i have a right to my opinion dont spam me with hate mail k?)

you agree though wikipedia is a not all true

WIKIPEDIA BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol i love food battle!

insertname here nice signature thats a wikid funny vid lol "i got a fever and the only perscription is more cowbell"




very funny video also lol

It's for people who'd like to know something. Not for nerds.


Define "truth". Absolute truth does not exist, get used to it. As soon as someone phrases something, their opinion is slightly influencing his word-choice, therefore the bias of the text itself. What did you believe? That a truth existed?
Sorry, but, like Santa Claus, truth is a myth.

if u wanna see afunny vid watch akmed the dead terroist over 20 mil veiws on utube

but what ever back to wikipedia its so funy what soem people post like random letters or a lot of false funny info

I love Wikipedia
Im an addict to it.
My life's dream is to have my own article thar (not really, but that'd beawesome)

Basically, Wikipedia or it didnt happen

lol anyone can put what ever they want on it

How is Wikipedia for nerds? Unless you're the one uploading information, it's not.

some people dont know that a lot of the info is fake and anyone can post fake information

If it's bullshit, it gets deleted right away! So shut the fuck up


At least in the english version...

The 9/11 article -in the danish wikipedia- is all about how bush was behind it! Haha

let me rephrase that, The nerds i was reffering to were people who argue for days and lose sleep over wich actor played the tin man in wizard of oz. People who stay up all night writing about crap like that.

people can make good discriptive storys up that people do not know if it true or not then takes the people behind wikipedia a while to research and could be on for a while

I think it'd be better if the facts were true. because it'd give you the facts strait up. it'd be more popular then google if it did that.

yes i agree that is y i started this forum to see who thought what about wikipedia and what they should do

Okay, then I rank as a nerd in your ranking. But so do you, since it's 2am and you're talking about wikipedia. Wait, no, not talking. arguing over useless things about wikipedia.

Wikipedia can be good for reports since that is the first site your teacher goes over while grading your report. Because if it says so on wikipedia then your teacher is like ok fine.

I got owned like that. I based a history essay on facts from wikipedia, and the teacher wrote on the essay "Wiki-biased".

"Famous and known" means "not creative".

yes that is true but if you have wrong info you will sound dumb when giving and oral report

then dont use it, fucktard!

Reading articles about something on some random site is no better than just reading about it on wikipedia

things on google are varified b4 placed on the website unlicke wikipedia and if you hate talking about this so much then just leave dude/dudet

Would you prefer an article such as this, full of what people like to hear? Saying that the universe expands at an accelerated space is, physically speaking, like saying that its acceleration in non-zero. Could be positive, could be negative! Who knows!

At least, wikipedia is exact in most scientific matters.

Wiki rocks its funny to laugh at thing you KNOW is wrong

yes that is true but there is so much stuff on there about stars and what not that is not true agree?

I haven't found a single untrue fact about astronomy on wikipedia as of yet. Although, granted, I'm more in the "small stuff" of physics than the massive sky stuff. Quantum be my thing.

about ANYTHING HAVE YOU FOUND ANY UNTRUE fact not just one topic...

You can hardly define truth in the other topics I read. Philosophy states as principle #1 of epistemology that truth depends on the starting assumptions. As for the rest, there is no truth in a subjective topic.

answer the queastion yes or no have or nave you not found a false fact on wikipedia

I answered the question: absolute truth doesn't exist.

For some topics yes it does
example:

The earth Rotates The Sun Stays in one place
if on wikipedia it is written otherwise it is false information
that is a proven fact by scientists around the world

my personal faovrie wiki site is wikiafterdark....:)

Didn't I say in topics other than sciences?

If I say that "Communism was a horrible thing", you might very well say that it was nice, yet neither of us will be right.

Wikipedia can be entertaining, but its a huge nono to quote for papers and such.

Pubmed<3<3<3

yes because that is an opinion



if someone said there will be a president soon it is true
if someone said gwbush would go for another 4 years it would be wrong beacuase he has served 8 years as president and that is the maximum

Tell me, what topics are left if I exclude humanities, sciences, politics and philosophy? None. Therefore, the incorrect facts can only be in scientific posts on wikipedia.

Now, would you dare say that jokers go around and post erroneous equations on wikipedia just for the fun of it? They'd get corrected. I know for a fact that half of all my tutors at uni posted at least one article each on wikipedia in their area of specialisation (dr Barham even has one on penguins as an extra). Trust me, the people who write articles are not nerds. They're the guys who know what they are talking about.

i know i did not say they were nerds but, you have to agree there is funny information on that website that may or may not be true lets put it as "gossip" wikipedia was ment for factual information not for gossip there is not just facts lots of opinions.

If you look for that on wikipedia:
- You really are dumb
- You won't find it; wikipedia will briefly mention that america always had a two-turn presidency and that is it.

that was not my point my point was that somone could post that and get away with it for a while before it was edited or deleted

You can't present facts without having a hint of opinion, even in science. If you haven't heard of quantum, you'll hear about it soon enough if you go on to do some interesting studies. That's where all the fun stuff happens, and where scientists can be doubtful about facts. And when they write something, there is always a slight hint of opinion.

Compare these two statements:
"While the Schroedinger equation gives us the evolution of a quantum state over time, following a simple differential separable equation, it is relatively uncertain as to what the result might be."
"The Schroedinger equation gives us the probably evolution of a quantum state over time, with the resolution of a simple D.E., in the form of a probability".

Which one's objective, which one isn't?
Answer, both are subjective. In the first one, the person is doubtful about the use, in the second, the person is doubtful about the result.

thats what im saying there are lots of opinions on things that dont need to be on there such as gossip about celebs and what not because they dont inform people about things and they may say it in a facutal manner and people will beleive it and take it and use it for things and then be wrong

I hate to be needlessly picky, but the sun is rotating around the galactic center. And you can look THAT up on wikipedia.

the sun is staionary i dont care how many times u see it on wikipedia

i love wikipedia i just dont trust it at all. sometimes when i get bored i just edit stuff on it.

if you read the rest of this me and one other guy anima had 1 pg long or so debate about wiki and false info

lol anima..

what?

I don't need to look it up on wikipedia, I already know it's true, the disc portion of spiral galaxies such as the milky way rotate around the galactic center. That's how things are whether you choose to believe it or not. aking

Your taking a pretty contradictory attitude considering that you've just been complaining about a lack of solid fact on wikipedia, and yet I present you with a fact and you choose to deny it. Quite ironic.

Shall we look up irony on wikipedia?

another discusion about wiki here we go

nevermind

im getting bored