The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia

[james bond]

Search any topic and the chances are that a Wikipedia entry for it comes to the top on near the top. Wikipedia is not a trusted, academic website because it is biased and contains wrong information. It may contain links at the bottom that are good, but what is written by Wikipedia can be modified by anybody. Conservative statements and valid links are routinely censored by Wikipedia editors. The founder of Wikipedia is a former pornographer named Jimmy Wales. I would not donate any money to Wikipedia because it is not a reputable nor academic website. I almost spit out my coffee when I first heard the term, it's not up to "Wikipedia standards" from a news article on CNN. What a crock that is. It sounds like fake news or biased news that CNN is noted for.

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

If one has to use Wikipedia, then search for the same topic under Conservapedia in order to balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia. A better academic website is Britannica online. For those serious about academia and research, a $70 subscription per year is not too much to pay. Furthermore, it's worth looking up Britannica subjects online as many of the popular searches have been put online without having to pay. Just type the subject you are searching for and then put Britannica after it. For example, here is Britannica's link (I searched for evolution Britannica) on "evolution."

evolution | scientific theory

 

[Revoltingest]

Former pornographer?
I like it!

Wikipedia is a great resource. There's a strong effort to achieve neutrality,
objectivity, supporting citations, & civility. I've found nothing else on the web
which even compares to it.

Is it perfect? No.
Even I've had to edit some things a little bit.
I've done that on Conservapedia too.

I also recommend Uncyclopedia.

 

[icehorse]

You understand of course how wikis work?

 

[Flame]

If one has to use Wikipedia, then search for the same topic under Conservapedia in order to balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia.

Yep this is a joke thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep this is a joke thread.

No!
He knows that because I've edited Conservapedia,
it's a trusted source.

 

[shunyadragon]

Search any topic and the chances are that a Wikipedia entry for it comes to the top on near the top. Wikipedia is not a trusted, academic website because it is biased and contains wrong information. It may contain links at the bottom that are good, but what is written by Wikipedia can be modified by anybody. Conservative statements and valid links are routinely censored by Wikipedia editors. The founder of Wikipedia is a former pornographer named Jimmy Wales. I would not donate any money to Wikipedia because it is not a reputable nor academic website. I almost spit out my coffee when I first heard the term, it's not up to "Wikipedia standards" from a news article on CNN. What a crock that is. It sounds like fake news or biased news that CNN is noted for.

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

If one has to use Wikipedia, then search for the same topic under Conservapedia in order to balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia. A better academic website is Britannica online. For those serious about academia and research, a $70 subscription per year is not too much to pay. Furthermore, it's worth looking up Britannica subjects online as many of the popular searches have been put online without having to pay. Just type the subject you are searching for and then put Britannica after it. For example, here is Britannica's link (I searched for evolution Britannica) on "evolution."

evolution | scientific theory

It is obvious from your narrow conservative religious view that anything that presents science objectively as not reputable academic source, since the only reputable source from your belief is a literal interpretation of the Bible. Jimmy Wales' problems do not detract from the relative accuracy as an academic resource.

I do not believe Britannica shares your views either. I personally prefer more specific academic references from legitimate academic journals and textbooks, which document and support the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old.

For example: From: human evolution

Human evolution, the process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct primates. Viewed zoologically, we humans are Homo sapiens, a culture-bearing, upright-walking species that lives on the ground and very likely first evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. We are now the only living members of what many zoologists refer to as the human tribe, Hominini, but there is abundant fossil evidence to indicate that we were preceded for millions of years by other hominins, such as Australopithecus, and that our species also lived for a time contemporaneously with at least one other member of our genus, Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals). In addition, we and our predecessors have always shared the Earth with other apelike primates, from the modern-day gorilla to the long-extinct Dryopithecus. That we and the extinct hominins are somehow related and that we and the apes, both living and extinct, are also somehow related is accepted by anthropologists and biologists everywhere. Yet the exact nature of our evolutionary relationships has been the subject of debate and investigation since the great British naturalist Charles Darwin published his monumental books On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted he had, that “man was descended from the apes,” and modern scientists would view such a statement as a useless simplification—just as they would dismiss any popular notions that a certain extinct species is the “missing link” between man and the apes. There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a “missing link” along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent. In fact, the human “family tree” may be better described as a “family bush,” within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

• 
• 

An artist’s depiction of five species of the human lineage.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Learn about human evolution.
Contunico © ZDF Enterprises GmbH, Mainz

 

[Sapiens]

How Accurate Is Wikipedia?
By Natalie Wolchover | January 24, 2011 11:58am ET

When you Google the question "How accurate is Wikipedia?" the highest-ranking result is, as you might expect, a Wikipedia article on the topic ("Reliability of Wikipedia").

That page contains a comprehensive list of studies undertaken to assess the accuracy of the crowd-sourced encyclopedia since its founding 10 years ago. Of course, if you find yourself on this page, you might worry that the list itself may not be trustworthy. Well, the good news is that almost all those studies tell us that it probably is.

In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.

Still, because anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, they "can easily be undermined through malice or ignorance," noted BBC technology commentator Bill Thompson. Vandalism of Wiki entries is common in the realm of politics. In 2006, for example, slanderous comments were added to U.S. Sen. Bill Frist's biography page; the IP addresses of the computers used to make the edits traced back to some of his political rivals' staffers. To counter such activity, Wikipedia places editing restrictions on articles that are prone to vandalism.

A Small Study of Our Own


To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.

Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."

This is not true, however, of the page about the indie pop band "Passion Pit," according to its drummer, Nate Donmoyer. Donmoyer found 10 factual errors on his band's page ranging from subtle to significant. Some information even appeared to have been added to the page by companies or organizations in search of publicity.

"It's kind of crazy," Donmoyer told LLM. "I don't think I can trust Wikipedia again. The littlest white lies can throw its whole validity off."

It may make sense that Wikipedia would have more reliable articles about academic topics than pop culture ones, considering that the latter are more prone to rumors and hearsay. On the other hand, there's no Passion Pit entry at all in Encyclopaedia Britannica. With more than three million English-language entries, Wikipedia very often wins our preference by default.

 

[Flame]

No!
He knows that because I've edited Conservapedia,
it's a trusted source.

I always thought something was suspicious about it.

 

[crowfeather]

crow observes and cackles to himself. Here they go again.
But secretly he sees things as things are, and more interested in survival than the suicidal humans, he decides to seem to them a dolt.
Wikipedia has its uses, anyway, as most things do. If you're interested in what things are not, Wikipedia will reliably supply it.

 

[james bond]

Former pornographer?
I like it!

Wikipedia is a great resource. There's a strong effort to achieve neutrality,
objectivity, supporting citations, & civility. I've found nothing else on the web
which even compares to it.

Is it perfect? No.
Even I've had to edit some things a little bit.
I've done that on Conservapedia too.

I also recommend Uncyclopedia.

No, there is no neutrality. I recently compared what WP had for homo naledi vs Britannica (written by Donald Johanson and the Britannica editors). WP tries hard to make it evidence for evolution when it is not at all.

Homo naledi | extinct hominin

Homo naledi fossils - Students | kids.britannica.com

 

[james bond]

I always thought something was suspicious about it.

What I said was if you're going to by WP and WP "standards" (cough), then search Conservapedia for the same in order to get some balance.

 

[james bond]

How Accurate Is Wikipedia?
By Natalie Wolchover | January 24, 2011 11:58am ET

When you Google the question "How accurate is Wikipedia?" the highest-ranking result is, as you might expect, a Wikipedia article on the topic ("Reliability of Wikipedia").

That page contains a comprehensive list of studies undertaken to assess the accuracy of the crowd-sourced encyclopedia since its founding 10 years ago. Of course, if you find yourself on this page, you might worry that the list itself may not be trustworthy. Well, the good news is that almost all those studies tell us that it probably is.

In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.

Still, because anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, they "can easily be undermined through malice or ignorance," noted BBC technology commentator Bill Thompson. Vandalism of Wiki entries is common in the realm of politics. In 2006, for example, slanderous comments were added to U.S. Sen. Bill Frist's biography page; the IP addresses of the computers used to make the edits traced back to some of his political rivals' staffers. To counter such activity, Wikipedia places editing restrictions on articles that are prone to vandalism.

A Small Study of Our Own


To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.

Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."

This is not true, however, of the page about the indie pop band "Passion Pit," according to its drummer, Nate Donmoyer. Donmoyer found 10 factual errors on his band's page ranging from subtle to significant. Some information even appeared to have been added to the page by companies or organizations in search of publicity.

"It's kind of crazy," Donmoyer told LLM. "I don't think I can trust Wikipedia again. The littlest white lies can throw its whole validity off."

It may make sense that Wikipedia would have more reliable articles about academic topics than pop culture ones, considering that the latter are more prone to rumors and hearsay. On the other hand, there's no Passion Pit entry at all in Encyclopaedia Britannica. With more than three million English-language entries, Wikipedia very often wins our preference by default.

Using WP to validate itself is circular reasoning. LMAO.

 

[james bond]

It is obvious from your narrow conservative religious view that anything that presents science objectively as not reputable academic source, since the only reputable source from your belief is a literal interpretation of the Bible. Jimmy Wales' problems do not detract from the relative accuracy as an academic resource.

I do not believe Britannica shares your views either. I personally prefer more specific academic references from legitimate academic journals and textbooks, which document and support the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old.

Because of Wales, it cannot be trusted. A few of the shocking facts,

"1) Wikipedia claims to be run by "volunteers" but is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls on many topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals."

...

"5) Jimmy Wales is a key operator of the "Hillary Clinton protection network" that cleanses the Clinton entry of all facts about Hillary's crimes and acts of treason against America"
...

6) Wikipedia also distributed child porn. "The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography..." said Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia""
...

7) Jimmy Wales openly despises natural medicine and the healing arts, deliberately allowing corporate-funded Wikipedia editors to disparage authors, naturopaths, doctors and practitioners who help people heal
...

10) The Wikipedia extortion racket is a reflection of the total lack of ethics practiced by Jimmy Wales himself"

++++++++

Wrong again, shuny, about Britannica not sharing my views. What you're doing is using a straw man as misdirection. Let's stick with evolution.

"Social Darwinism was an influential social philosophy in some circles through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it was used as a rationalization for racism, colonialism, and social stratification. At the other end of the political spectrum, Marxist theorists have resorted to evolution by natural selection as an explanation for humankind’s political history."

...

"The term evolution and the general concept of change through time also have penetrated into scientific language well beyond biology and even into common language. Astrophysicists speak of the evolution of the solar system or of the universe; geologists, of the evolution of Earth’s interior; psychologists, of the evolution of the mind; anthropologists, of the evolution of cultures; art historians, of the evolution of architectural styles; and couturiers, of the evolution of fashion. These and other disciplines use the word with only the slightest commonality of meaning—the notion of gradual, and perhaps directional, change over the course of time."

...

"Darwinism understood as a process that favours the strong and successful and eliminates the weak and failing has been used to justify alternative and, in some respects, quite diametric economic theories (see economics). These theories share in common the premise that the valuation of all market products depends on a Darwinian process. Specific market commodities are evaluated in terms of the degree to which they conform to specific valuations emanating from the consumers. On the one hand, some of these economic theories are consistent with theories of evolutionary psychology that see preferences as determined largely genetically; as such, they hold that the reactions of markets can be predicted in terms of largely fixed human attributes. The dominant neo-Keynesian (see economics: Keynesian economics) and monetarist schools of economics make predictions of the macroscopic behaviour of economies (see macroeconomics) based the interrelationship of a few variables; money supply, rate of inflation, and rate of unemployment jointly determine the rate of economic growth. On the other hand, some minority economists, such as the 20th-century Austrian-born British theorist F.A. Hayek and his followers, predicate the Darwinian process on individual preferences that are mostly underdetermined and change in erratic or unpredictable ways. According to them, old ways of producing goods and services are continuously replaced by new inventions and behaviours. These theorists affirm that what drives the economy is the ingenuity of individuals and corporations and their ability to bring new and better products to the market."

We have the "Religious criticism and acceptance" section.

"The theory of evolution has been seen by some people as incompatible with religious beliefs, particularly those of Christianity. The first chapters of the biblical book of Genesis describe God’s creation of the world, the plants, the animals, and human beings. A literal interpretation of Genesis seems incompatible with the gradual evolution of humans and other organisms by natural processes. Independently of the biblical narrative, the Christian beliefs in the immortality of the soul and in humans as “created in the image of God” have appeared to many as contrary to the evolutionary origin of humans from nonhuman animals."

It even has a section on Intelligent Design criticism.

"William Paley’s Natural Theology, the book by which he has become best known to posterity, is a sustained argument explaining the obvious design of humans and their parts, as well as the design of all sorts of organisms, in themselves and in their relations to one another and to their environment. Paley’s keystone claim is that “there cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order, without choice;…means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated.” His book has chapters dedicated to the complex design of the human eye; to the human frame, which, he argues, displays a precise mechanical arrangement of bones, cartilage, and joints; to the circulation of the blood and the disposition of blood vessels; to the comparative anatomy of humans and animals; to the digestive system, kidneys, urethra, and bladder; to the wings of birds and the fins of fish; and much more. For more than 300 pages, Paley conveys extensive and accurate biological knowledge in such detail and precision as was available in 1802, the year of the book’s publication. After his meticulous description of each biological object or process, Paley draws again and again the same conclusion—only an omniscient and omnipotent deity could account for these marvels and for the enormous diversity of inventions that they entail."

 

[LuisDantas]

As the man said: "Reality has a well known liberal bias".

 

[Nietzsche]

Using WP to validate itself is circular reasoning. LMAO.

You didn't read beyond the first few sentences, did you? You can do this, I believe in you.

Also, given you've given several impassioned defenses of the Bible...using the Bible as your evidence...you're the last person on the planet who can get on anyone for "circular reasoning".

 

[Skwim]

Search any topic and the chances are that a Wikipedia entry for it comes to the top on near the top. Wikipedia is not a trusted, academic website because it is biased and contains wrong information.

Why? Not because of any evidence you're able to point to, because you don't, but because you say it's so.

It may contain links at the bottom that are good, but what is written by Wikipedia can be modified by anybody.

Even by you, dear Jimmy.

Conservative statements and valid links are routinely censored by Wikipedia editors.

Not because you've ever found his to be true yourself---you'd be able to produce the evidence if you did, which you don't--- but because it's far easier to parrot the paranoia of the conservative right. See your Jimmy Wales link below.

I would not donate any money to Wikipedia because it is not a reputable nor academic website.

Gee, and I would have bet everyone here thought you would. Thanks for the heads up.

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

Ah yes, listen to the levelheaded, unbiased, and fair minded Mike Adams, the author of your linked site here, who had this to say about the last Presidential election.

"The evil, demonic, mass murdering Hillary Clinton has been defeated."

CELEBRATE your victory [Trump's win], friends and fans.

We have defeated evil incarnate.

We have defeated hatred, bigotry and extreme deception of the mentally ill democrats.

We have defeated deep corruption, CHEATING, lying, rigged polls, rigged news, rigged FBI decisions and more."
source​

The founder of Wikipedia is a former pornographer named Jimmy Wales.

Ever hear of the Ad Hominem fallacy? My guess is that you have not. But speaking of people's past, you might want to look into the past education of your favorite hero, Mike Adams.

"Mike Adams has a four-year bachelor of science degree from a prominent university in the Midwest. He has minors in mathematics and economics.

Adams began to attend college before graduating from high school. His early college coursework included microbiology and genetics. Adams has a strong academic background in the sciences.

Adams also studied anthropology, literature, logic, labor law, Greek history, computer science, international trade, classical "Adam Smith" economics and music composition and theory. (He now follows Austrian economics and is an avid reader of LewRockwell.com and DailyReckoning.com)

Adams composed music for several university theatrical productions and was offered a job by a large university as the head of sound design for the theater department. (He turned it down.)
source
​

People who go on and on about their education, but fail to mention their school, almost invariably do so to avoid having it checked. And all of us who've gone to college know that in the four years it takes to earn a BS or BA, one is required to take quite a few classes outside their declared major, which is why Mike can brag about the diverse fields he's had classes in. But why bother to brag about them at all? These classes are so inconsequential that people never bother to mention them unless . . . . . . . unless they have a need to impress others. It's obvious your Adams has more problems than just his arch-conservative paranoia.

If one has to use Wikipedia, then search for the same topic under Conservapedia in order to balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia.

Because Conservapedia isn't biased. Nope. Not at all.

"The Bible is the most logical, insightful and influential collection of books and letters ever written. It includes the most beautiful book ever written, the Gospel of Luke, the most profound book ever written, the Gospel of John, and the most intellectual treatise ever written, the Epistle to the Hebrews. Biblical scientific foreknowledge has anticipated or guided nearly every great human achievement."

.​

 

[shunyadragon]

From wikipedia:

Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity is an 1802 work of Christian apologetics and philosophy of religion by the English clergyman William Paley (July 1743 – 25 May 1805). The book expounds his arguments from natural theology, making a teleological argument for the existence of God, notably beginning with the watchmaker analogy.

The book was written in the context of the natural theology tradition. In earlier centuries, theologians such as John Ray and William Derham, as well as philosophers of classical times such as Cicero, argued for the existence and goodness of God from the general well-being of living things and the physical world.

Paley's Natural Theology is an extended argument, constructed around a series of examples including finding a watch; comparing the eye to a telescope; and the existence of finely adapted mechanical structures in animals, such as joints which function like hinges or manmade ball and socket joints. Paley argues that these all lead to an intelligent Creator, and that a system is more than the sum of its parts. The last chapters are more theological in character, arguing that the attributes of God must be sufficient for the extent of his operations, and that God must be good because designs seen in nature are beneficial.

The book was many times republished and remains in print. It continues to be consulted by creationists. Charles Darwin took its arguments seriously and responded to them; evolutionary biologists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins continue to discuss Paley's book to respond to modern proponents with similar ideas.

 

[james bond]

You didn't read beyond the first few sentences, did you? You can do this, I believe in you.

Also, given you've given several impassioned defenses of the Bible...using the Bible as your evidence...you're the last person on the planet who can get on anyone for "circular reasoning".

I can say as God as my witness, but the WP users have to say as Jimmy Wales as my witness ha ha.

 

[Nietzsche]

I can say as God as my witness, but the WP users have to say as Jimmy Wales as my witness ha ha.

Good point. So you've completely conceded, then? Given that Jimmy actually exists?

 

[james bond]

Why? Not because of any evidence you're able to point to, because you don't, but because you say it's so.


Even by you, dear Jimmy.


Not because you've ever found his to be true yourself---you'd be able to produce the evidence if you did, which you don't--- but because it's far easier to parrot the paranoia of the conservative right. See your Jimmy Wales link below.


Gee, and I would have bet everyone here thought you would. Thanks for the heads up.


Ah yes, listen to the levelheaded, unbiased, and fair minded Mike Adams, the author of your linked site here, who had this to say about the last Presidential election.

"The evil, demonic, mass murdering Hillary Clinton has been defeated."

CELEBRATE your victory [Trump's win], friends and fans.

We have defeated evil incarnate.

We have defeated hatred, bigotry and extreme deception of the mentally ill democrats.

We have defeated deep corruption, CHEATING, lying, rigged polls, rigged news, rigged FBI decisions and more."
source​

Ever hear of the Ad Hominem fallacy? My guess is that you have not. But speaking of people's past, you might want to look into the past education of your favorite hero, Mike Adams.

"Mike Adams has a four-year bachelor of science degree from a prominent university in the Midwest. He has minors in mathematics and economics.

Adams began to attend college before graduating from high school. His early college coursework included microbiology and genetics. Adams has a strong academic background in the sciences.

Adams also studied anthropology, literature, logic, labor law, Greek history, computer science, international trade, classical "Adam Smith" economics and music composition and theory. (He now follows Austrian economics and is an avid reader of LewRockwell.com and DailyReckoning.com)

Adams composed music for several university theatrical productions and was offered a job by a large university as the head of sound design for the theater department. (He turned it down.)
source
​

People who go on and on about their education, but fail to mention their school, almost invariably do so to avoid having it checked. And all of us who've gone to college know that in the four years it takes to earn a BS or BA, one is required to take quite a few classes outside their declared major, which is why Mike can brag about the diverse fields he's had classes in. But why bother to brag about them? These classes are so inconsequential that people never bother to mention them unless . . . . . . . unless they have a need to impress others. It's obvious your Adams has more problems than just his arch-conservative paranoia.


Because Conservapedia isn't biased. Nope. Not at all.

"The Bible is the most logical, insightful and influential collection of books and letters ever written. It includes the most beautiful book ever written, the Gospel of Luke, the most profound book ever written, the Gospel of John, and the most intellectual treatise ever written, the Epistle to the Hebrews. Biblical scientific foreknowledge has anticipated or guided nearly every great human achievement."

.​

tldr, but I assume it's full of bovine type opinions.

As for Mike Adams, is he related to Scott Adams of Dilbert?

Mike Adams and Scott Adams agree... Democrats are extreme bullies who contradict 'tolerance'

Scott Adams' Blog