Christopher
Active Member
- Aug 7, 2009
- 569
- 75
- 28
- Thread starter
- #61
Notice I included the whole internet ... for a good reason. Wicrapedia is just a hub ... sources are still opinion based anyway ... so you will only trust sources that agree with your opinion no matter how "reliable" they are.
Here is Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources:
Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.
I always check the sources from Wiki, and look at other reliable sources which base their information on facts to confirm the information.
Gut ... splitting ... open!
Using the source as proof of the source's reliability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh damn! This shit is too funny ... I need some serious valium ... can't ... stop ... laughing!
Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it ... especially online. That's like Fox saying they're "honest" or CBS saying they're "fair and balanced" ... seriously, it's not smart by any measure or spin. But ... at least now I know what level of intellectual absence I am dealing with ... complete and total.
All I was showing is what Wikipedias policy says, not that it is followed all the time. In other words, Im not using the website to prove it always has reliable sources. Perhaps you missed the multiple times where I said that there can be crap on Wikipedia. Or maybe you missed the multiple times where I discussed that we should check the sources Wikipedia provides. Do you really not understand my position on it yet?
Perhaps you could also now go back to the quote I provided on Wikipedia (remember, the quote which started us on the discussion), check the source Wikipedia uses and try to say that source is crap.