THIS IS WHY PEOPLE SHOULDN'T USE WIKIPEDIA...
Tuesday. 4.17.07 1:13 am
This is why wikipedia needs to be taking down today,this is just wrong.
C&L
Categories: internet [t], false info [t], wikipedia [t], t-pain [t]
One entry doesn't mean the entire thing should be taken down.
That was hilarious though.
» Dilated on 2007-04-17 01:13:19
not really,but it does need to be takin down because it really doesn't provide people with useful information. anybody can change Wikipedia,and this entry shows that.
» atlmuzikfanzinc on 2007-04-17 04:00:14
It does provide people with useful information. Just because a tenth( if that) of the people who use wikipedia decide to alter entries doesn't mean that the entire wikipedia is corrupt. That's akin to saying that because one member of Crime Mob was a child molester, the entire group is shady. Or that because the VA Tech Shooter played alot of counterstrike, the millions of other people who play the game are a threat to society. A few pages such as these does not warrant the disassembly of all of wikipedia
» Dilated on 2007-04-17 07:30:25
wikipedia is not a crediable source,and a crediable source should not be alter by just anybody,so as far as getting useful information I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia,and nor would any of my professors. Does wikipedia provide people with useful crediable information? no,because you don't know if if right or wrong unless you check a crediable source.
Wikipedia just provides quick facts that might not be true if you don't do your research.
» atlmuzikfanzinc on 2007-04-18 11:40:00
That must be why it's ranked number 8 on alexa.com, 'cause it's an unreliable source of information and anybody can open up any page and write anything they want. You can't measure a page's "usefullness" based solely on the assessment of your professors because a page's useflulness is not tangible. A rocket scientist may find calculus useful, but Vince Young could claim that it doesn't.
And as for credibility, what news venues can claim to be 100 percent credible? You hear people questioning the credibility of Fox News, yet they have their own TV station. How "credible" is Bill O'Reilly? For that matter, how credible is Dan Rather, the man who anchored CBS News for almost 25 years? He went on television and told the world false information concerning Bush's service in the National Guard, so he must not be a credible source of information. All the other stories he has reported have to be taken with a grain of salt because if one thing he said was false, the man is a liar. Afterall, we should judge things based on a fraction, rather than the whole of what they say/do/are. JFK Was an adulterer, so he is a liar. Moses was a murderer, so we can't look up to him. Barak Obama didn't pay his parking tickets for over 20 years so he is a menace to society. 2pac was a rapist, Clinton a whore and Jack McCoy a drunk.
» Dilated on 2007-04-18 12:25:18
wikipedia being ranked #8 on alexa.com has nothing to do with it being a reliable source,it's just that people go to this site to get information that might be reliable or in some cases might not. yahoo,msn,google,and youtube are the top for and they all couldn't be reliable.
News coming from those people have a better chance of being credible than some random person on from wikipedia.
» atlmuzikfanzinc on 2007-04-18 10:14:16
If you are a member, try logging in again or accessing this page here.