Comments on: Wikipedia as a source http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/12/05/wikipedia-as-a-source/ Don't dis or dismiss this miss! Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:28:30 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: vobios.blog http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/12/05/wikipedia-as-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-57048 vobios.blog Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:18:49 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/12/05/wikipedia-as-a-source/#comment-57048 <strong>probing the wiki</strong> Breaking news from The New York Times. Turns out the mighty Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Here’s an excerpt from the article: Still, he said, he was trying to make Wikipedia less vulnerable to tampering. He said he was starting a review mech... probing the wiki

Breaking news from The New York Times. Turns out the mighty Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Still, he said, he was trying to make Wikipedia less vulnerable to tampering. He said he was starting a review mech…

]]> By: PCD http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/12/05/wikipedia-as-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-56856 PCD Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:10:43 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/12/05/wikipedia-as-a-source/#comment-56856 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. 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.

]]>