Lol, that's a good one! I thought you were serious until I read your description of Wikipedia. Ace!

Good point ... but may I point out there is a huge difference between a fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) and a concept? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept), and that concepts based on non-facts might be considered generally useless?

For instance, if your boss hadn't been able to communicate that concept to you, by virtue of the fact that Humans can communicate verbally; then that conversation might have taken place in the belly of a cave-lion, by means of facial expressions of the most unpleasant sort.   

I love Wikipedia. I can spend hours surfing from article to article. I've lost many hours doing this.

That said, I'm reluctant to treat Wikipedia as a source for 'facts' per se... too many problems with the site and its contributors, especially in the past few months.

I didn't mean to come across that way, only to point out that I see a lot of people making arguments, and getting upset about the "importance" of what they are saying (see the posts in 'The most dangerous people alive' thread for instance ) when a lot of the basis for their statements seems to be actually nothing more than a half-remembered propaganda blurb from some cute little talking-head on a corporate-owned "news" channel.

I'm not implying that anyone here is so messed up and useless they intentionally toss inciteful comments around just to pull people's strings, only that they probably really have a good point, a good idea, a good concept floating around in there somewhere and if they could just link it to reality by stating true facts instead of blurting out the easiest, most emotional argument they can not-think of ...

I think you and I are saying the same thing, and I agree with you. Creativity and new ideas is very, very important. In a way, you restated my position very well when you said "the ball has passed to us and we should run with it instead of just sitting there and trusting that past ...". I might point out again that there is a huge difference between facts, which are the basis of all knowledge ( "the beginning of wisdom and truth" ) and should not be ignored, and the way facts are intentionally misrepresented ( or trivialized )in order to get ignorant people such as myself to trot into the correct corral, where creativity and new ideas can be used to invent new ways to process them for consumption more easily.

I just think it would be easier to score a goal in the game of life if there weren't so many ah, ******* throwing **** on the field because they are too lazy, or have been programmed not to, walk ten feet to get something useful to toss instead ... see what I mean? I hope I don't come across as being arrogant or anything. I know i may seem like it when I focus on an idea, or a concept, but it's not arrogance, it's just intense focus. BTW, did you read the fact/concept stuff on Wikipedia? I re-read it and learned something new ... again!

Have you considered that the people updating Wikipedia are human, and thus might of been stuffed with misleading information provided by different forms of propaganda and the media? That would pretty much defeat the entire value of good old wiki right there.



Agreed... Let me add that repeating past knowledge merely shows that you have a good memory. It doesn't nessacarly show that you are smarter than anyone else.

If anyone wants to try to become smarter, I recommend that you study some philosophy. You'll be surprised at some of the stuff that has been thought of, but never became intergrated with our society due to a lack of publicity. Although, not everyone has the mental disposition needed study it well. Many philosophers have gone crazy.

HAHA sounds about as factual and informative as this site  

wikipedia is an interesting site. articles on some topics are very good: generally those 'the masses' find more interesting, such as Pink Floyd. some of the articles on more hard-scientific topics seem pretty good to me; i'm no expert, though. articles on social sciences and politically charged topics are a little worse, and it's always hit or miss (the articles are only as good as the volunteers who write them).

here's an intersting read, along these lines:
Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?

"Extemporaneous debate is a style involving no planning in advance, and two teams with a first and second speaker. While a majority of judges will allow debaters to cite current events and various statistics (which opponents may question the credibility of) the only research permitted are one or more articles given to the debaters along with the resolution shortly before the debate. It begins with an affirmative first-speaker constructive speech, followed by a negative; then an affirmative and negative second-speaker constructive speech respectively. Each of these speeches are six minutes in length, and are followed by two minutes of cross examination. There is then an affirmative and negative first-speaker rebuttal, and a negative and affirmative second-speaker rebuttal, respectively. These speeches are each four minutes long. No new points can be brought into the debate during the rebuttals.
This style of debate generally centers around three main contentions, although a team can occasionally use two or four. In order for the affirmative to win, all of the negative contentions must be defeated, and all of the affirmative contentions must be left standing. Most of the information presented in the debate must be tied in to support one of these contentions, or "sign posted". Much of extemporaneous debate is similar to policy debate; one main difference, however, is that extemporaneous debate focuses less on the implementation of the resolution."

But, if the debate keeps changing, if new topics or additional contentions are allowed to be thrown in at any time, thus sidetracking the debate, it becomes something more like "Gotcha Journalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism]

Thank you veddy much for that article, dystopic!

Even though I personally haven't had any red-flags go up in reading material on Wikipedia, I'm gratified that several people took the time and immediately pointed out my possible lapse in adding a caveat "don't trust everything you read". Thank you all.


dystopic posted the reference above that is a good starting place to find some actual proof. In answer to your inquiry, well, yes, I have. I live in the U.S. - I wouldn't trust my own brother (if I had one) to take $5 and go to the store for a loaf of bread and bring back the correct change. Guess I forgot to mention that too, it's just second nature to me. Thanks.

I had to read up on fallacies and argumentation theory to get an idea what you were getting at, ghostwes. I'm not sure yet, but I'm trying. I never said I was an expert in anything, or claimed to be completely trustworthy.

Maybe Mumblefratz actually condensed my outlook into something understandable better than I can -
As far as judging anyone 's response to my original statements, that's not important. Not compared to even the smallest fraction of a percent of a chance to empower others in a constructive way so that the world is a better place generally; which is important, even vital.

oops! sorry. It's so easy to ... I assumed that ... well nevermind that, now. I'm all happy again   

you're welcome! incidentally, I was looking up "The Ten Commandments" yesterday on wikipedia. When I was there, the second section that now starts "The Ten Commandments are given in passages in two books of the Bible" had been recently edited, and yesterday around midday it read, "The Ten EMILY IS A MEANIE Commandments..."

i thought it was funny.