44 replies to this topic

[iargue]

Next time, try something not five years out of date.

http://dictionary.re...browse/Internet


Of course, with your standard or arguing, that cant be an accepted resource either. What did I do wrong this time? Grasp at straws, forgot that there are other dictionaries people can use, or am I just so wrong you wont argue with me?

http://en.wikipedia....ternet#Creation

Another completely unreliable source.

Edited by iargue, 06 September 2009 - 09:30 AM.

[Sweeney]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet


Of course, with your standard or arguing, that cant be an accepted resource either. What did I do wrong this time? Grasp at straws, forgot that there are other dictionaries people can use, or am I just so wrong you wont argue with me?

I'm sorry, perhaps you've failed to understand the point of contention; namely that capitalisation of the word "internet" is optional, and both spellings are acceptable.

You can hardly blame me if you fail to hold up your end of an argument. Which, by the way, for this particular point, was not yours to uphold anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation
Another completely unreliable source.

You've pointed to Wikipedia, and said that it is an unreliable source. I'm assuming you meant the comment to be a sarcastic jibe at my standards of evidence, when in fact, it's just true.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[iargue]

I'm sorry, perhaps you've failed to understand the point of contention; namely that capitalisation of the word "internet" is optional, and both spellings are acceptable.

You can hardly blame me if you fail to hold up your end of an argument. Which, by the way, for this particular point, was not yours to uphold anyway.

You've pointed to Wikipedia, and said that it is an unreliable source. I'm assuming you meant the comment to be a sarcastic jibe at my standards of evidence, when in fact, it's just true.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You really think Wikipedia is unreliable? /sigh

[jcrdude]

You really think Wikipedia is unreliable? /sigh

I could go edit wikipedia and say that the internet was born when I took two iron pipes and slapped them together and made some ruckus... then I set them down, put a tribble between them, set my phaser to liquefy... then we had world wide internet with global availability... amazing what you can do with iron, a tribble, and a phaser these days

Edited by jcrboy, 06 September 2009 - 11:49 AM.

[iargue]

I could go edit wikipedia and say that the internet was born when I took two iron pipes and slapped them together and made some ruckus... then I set them down, put a tribble between them, set my phaser to liquefy... then we had world wide internet with global availability... amazing what you can do with iron, a tribble, and a phaser these days

And, your text would be Reverted. Go. Do it now.

[jcrdude]

I can't do it on your particular page... touche

changed protection level for "Internet" [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Excessive vandalism)

[iargue]

I can't do it on your particular page... touche

Go ahead and do it on another page!

Do you honestly think its still a "Anyone can edit" thing?

http://www.guardian....st-inclusionist

Chi's team discovered that the way the site operated had changed significantly from the early days, when it ran an open-door policy that allowed in anyone with the time and energy to dedicate to the project. Today, they discovered, a stable group of high-level editors has become increasingly responsible for controlling the encyclopedia, while casual contributors and editors are falling away. Wikipedia – often touted as the bastion of open knowledge online – has become, in Chi's words, "a more exclusive place".

One of the measures the Parc team looked at was how often a user's edit succeeds in sticking. "We found that if you were an elite editor, the chance of your edit being reverted was something in the order of 1% – and that's been very consistent over time from around 2003 or 2004," he says.

Meanwhile, for those who did not invest vast amounts of time in editing, the experience was very different. "For editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 all the way up to about 15% by October 2008. And the 'onesies' – people who only make one edit a month – their edits are now being reverted at a 25% rate," Chi explains.

Its not like Urban Dictionary where people just post whatever the fuck they want. People spend alot of time reading articles, and checking the resources.

Edited by iargue, 06 September 2009 - 01:55 PM.

[Sweeney]

You really think Wikipedia is unreliable? /sigh

Bless your little cotton socks.

[Metigue]

Wikipedia still lists me as the creator of runescape xD

"And he created it when he went to the toilet"

Or it did last time I checked, This should probably move into the debate section.

[iargue]

Wikipedia still lists me as the creator of runescape xD

"And he created it when he went to the toilet"

Or it did last time I checked, This should probably move into the debate section.

You would look smarter if you checked before you posted, considering its been Semi-Protected for a long time now.

[Metigue]

You would look smarter if you checked before you posted, considering its been Semi-Protected for a long time now.

My post was merely stating the ease of editing content on wikipedia.

[iargue]

My post was merely stating the ease of editing content on wikipedia.

And that statement was entirely off if you bother to read any of the other posts. Users that are not elite editors have around a 25% automatic rollback, plus Wikipedia has a staff to check newly edited articles for errors, and for sources. Today, you cant just go to any damn page you want, click edit, and say your the king of the world. It will just be removed.

[Metigue]

And that statement was entirely off if you bother to read any of the other posts. Users that are not elite editors have around a 25% automatic rollback, plus Wikipedia has a staff to check newly edited articles for errors, and for sources. Today, you cant just go to any damn page you want, click edit, and say your the king of the world. It will just be removed.

I know that much, but out of the 2 billion internet users, how many do you reckon use Wikipedia?

How many do you reckon have edited a page?

How many do you reckon are "elite editors"?

How many of those do you think actually have no idea what they are talking about?

[iargue]

I know that much, but out of the 2 billion internet users, how many do you reckon use Wikipedia?

How many do you reckon have edited a page?

How many do you reckon are "elite editors"?

How many of those do you think actually have no idea what they are talking about?

Lol. And this forum that brags that Open Source is better because it has a large base of people checking for bugs.

This is why Wikipedia has SOURCES, so you can see where they get their information, and if someone posts something without a source, it gets automatically flagged for a Fact Check, and then people will search the internet for proof of what that person edited, and if they cannot find any, then the edited section is removed.

If you want to prove me wrong, change a page. Go ahead.

[Metigue]

Lol. And this forum that brags that Open Source is better because it has a large base of people checking for bugs.

This is why Wikipedia has SOURCES, so you can see where they get their information, and if someone posts something without a source, it gets automatically flagged for a Fact Check, and then people will search the internet for proof of what that person edited, and if they cannot find any, then the edited section is removed.

If you want to prove me wrong, change a page. Go ahead.

You can also have incorrect sources. (The onion is an example, Google velcrow crops, it is another.) I have proven many a lecturer with a diploma wrong, whilst I have mere A-levels to back me

But all said and done, I do trust alot of the stuff I read on Wikipedia, although I often do my own verification and at this point I am just arguing for post count and for the sake of arguing

Edited by Metigue, 07 September 2009 - 12:58 PM.

[iargue]

You can also have incorrect sources. (The onion is an example, Google velcrow crops, it is another.) I have proven wrong many a lecturer with a diploma wrong whilst I have mere A-levels to back me

But all said and done, I do trust alot of the stuff I read on Wikipedia, although I often do my own verification and at this point I am just arguing for post count and for the sake of arguing

Where is that damn invisi button....

[Metigue]

A man once set half of a glass in front of me and said, "Is it Half full or Half empty". So I drank the glass. No more problem.

Iargue, the difference between you and me is, you drink the rest of the glass, whilst I go and fill it back up again

[iargue]

What good does a full glass do you? You'll still be thirsty.

[Noitidart]

I mean in this specific thread.

No you were right the first time.. Everywhere

Oh and Al Gore invented the Internet!

[Sweeney]

No you were right the first time.. Everywhere

Fuck off.