All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Wikipedia as a source
I generally don’t use the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a source, mainly due to the fact that literally anyone can come in and edit the content. I know that the entries are corrected eventually, but as a general rule I will use it as a starting point for info, and use other sources to verify the content.
Here’s a story about a man who had an entry written about him on Wikipedia that contained some major falsehoods.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
2 Responses to “Wikipedia as a source”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Wikipedia is toy of the internet. You can have Ward Churchill’s devotees writing absolutely flattering lies about him and against the 9/11 victims and it be left out on the internet polluting the true information out there.
This is one reason I say anyone citing Wickpedia as a source buttressing their argument is admitting defeat for going to a source of comprimised entries.