home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc      Miscellaneous topics pertaining to Star      25,718 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 24,597 of 25,718   
   Your Name to Your Name   
   Re: George Lucas "bans" Darth Vader acto   
   23 Jul 10 09:25:43   
   
   33273713   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "Duggy"  wrote in message   
   news:0ebdacf2-59c7-4081-9d8a-a62fd7a4505e@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...   
   On Jul 21, 4:14 pm, "Your Name"  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > Wikipedia is definitely not an "encyclopedia" ... it pretends to be one   
   and   
   > > foolish people actually believe it, but in reality it's just a pile of   
   > > inaccurate dog poo best avoided.   
   >   
   > A scientific magazine disagrees with you.  It surveyed the   
      
   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.  :-\   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
      
   > And yes, there are inaccuracies but they exist in all   
   > encyclopedia.  Wikipedia may have more random inaccuracies, but   
   > a paper encyclopedia gains more and more inaccuracies over time.   
      
   Real encyclopedia are checked by experts ... not other random knob-head   
   Internet users claiming to be "experts".  :-\   
      
      
   > "Believe it" is a big call.  I believe it more than a random web page   
   > but I wouldn't bet money on accuracy.   
      
   And yet fools post information from there as though it was accurate proof of   
   something ... quite simply it's not. At one point even the guy who   
   "invented" it said it wasn't accurate.   
      
   IMDB is exactly the same - information supplied by fools on the Internet and   
   not properly checked.   
      
   IBList.com is a better way. Information about books is posted by users, but   
   is actually CHECKED before being made live. No doubt it still has   
   inaccuracies (humans are falliable), but far fewer than the likes of   
   Wikipedia and IMDB.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca