Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused

Originally Posted by Gecko3

I browse wikipedia quite often, but just for fun, not for doing papers on, as my professors have told me (one of them quite hiliariously, after going there, and finding out that a student just copied/pasted the same thing in their research paper as the wiki article) that it's not a reliable source, which I have to agree with them on.

I disagree. For paper writting of some subjects (the uncool ones, I guess) wikipedia is AMAZING. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylsulfoxide. The article is about a solvent commonly used in labs. There's absolutely nothing about methyl sulfoxide in the Encyclopedia Britanica.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LeHah

In a better world, I'd be given the power to string you up by your neck for being a traitor to your better man.

"Boy, this source doesn't have what I want - but THIS DOES! Obviously my opinion is correct!" is about as fucking stupid a point as a person can make. Isn't this why we have MANY books instead of living with a single source? Isn't this why we have things like libraries instead of the soapbox mentality of the internet?

You take this whole internet argument thing way too seriously. This wasn't even a real argument, just a lively conversation; there certainly was no reason to flame anyone.

All I said is I disagreed with Acid because for some subjects, namely chemistry and biology, Wikipedia is a far more complete source of information than other encyclopedias which may be taken to be more reliable.

That's it. No reason to cry a river or threaten genocide.

Quote:

Where do you live, boy? I want to call your hometown and complain about your obvious lack of education.

That's just childish.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Since when is pointing out the obvious flaw in someone's supposed logic flaming? Does that mean correcting someone is trolling? It sounds more like you're too afraid to step on toes for fear of the person's reaction.

Pointing out the flaws in an argument isn't flaming; I didn't call it that. I called your threat to hang me a flame.

I just thought it was interesting that you armed yourself to the teeth as if to defend the universal truth of wikipedia's sucking or something. Saying that wikipedia is good seems to be a direct attack to your morals or something.

I don't give a shit, I said wikipedia is better than most other encyclopedias for chemistry and biology, and that's that. Take it or leave it.

Quote:

Which is it? I don't have time for this nonsense.

You obviously do since your post average is close to 10 posts per day.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Whatever. You win at the internet.

Happy now?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?