What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Still Waiting!!

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Do you ever get bored at achieving nothing?

If you disagree please tell us what you achieve here
I know what I achieve here. What to you achieve here?
I observe what idiots believe which is richly amusing
I couldn't agree more.
The funniest people are those that believe that sterile dead ponds write complicated code
No, the funniest people are those that believe that because they don't understand something, no one can.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
Do you ever get bored at achieving nothing?

If you disagree please tell us what you achieve here
I know what I achieve here. What to you achieve here?
I observe what idiots believe which is richly amusing
I couldn't agree more.
The funniest people are those that believe that sterile dead ponds write complicated code
No, the funniest people are those that believe that because they don't understand something, no one can.
Everything is understandable and will be understood, it's sad that idiotic professors believe that they understand everything already. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Everything is understandable and will be understood, it's sad that idiotic professors believe that they understand everything already. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance
Not everything is knowable, sometimes admitting ignorance is key. It's sad that some posters on message boards believe they know more than experts who have studied a particular subject for years. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
Everything is understandable and will be understood, it's sad that idiotic professors believe that they understand everything already. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance
Not everything is knowable, sometimes admitting ignorance is key. It's sad that some posters on message boards believe they know more than experts who have studied a particular subject for years. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance.
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time

One can not study delusions that are not real
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Everything is understandable and will be understood, it's sad that idiotic professors believe that they understand everything already. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance
Not everything is knowable, sometimes admitting ignorance is key. It's sad that some posters on message boards believe they know more than experts who have studied a particular subject for years. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance.
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time

One can not study delusions that are not real
Really? Googling 'abiogenesis' is way too much effort, you obviously prefer ignorance.

If not, let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
Everything is understandable and will be understood, it's sad that idiotic professors believe that they understand everything already. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance
Not everything is knowable, sometimes admitting ignorance is key. It's sad that some posters on message boards believe they know more than experts who have studied a particular subject for years. Complete morons in denial of their ignorance.
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time

One can not study delusions that are not real
Really? Googling 'abiogenesis' is way too much effort, you obviously prefer ignorance.

If not, let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
LOL I can google bigfoot and find 36,500,000 results, so does that make bigfoot real?


Genuine schizzos do not understand their own ignorance and typically believe that they are the brightest person in the group as a result of their grandiose delusions.

Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
 
Last edited:

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?
Why do they teach a good for nothing theory then? Such is a waste.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Yawning



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

  1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
  2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
  3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
  4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)

So the joke is on you again professor
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Yawning



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

  1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
  2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
  3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
  4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)

So the joke is on you again professor
I was not referring to the information on the Wikipedia page but the secondary sources found there and as your post stated:
Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.​

My challenge to you, which you clearly didn't answer was:
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources (secondary sources) are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?​
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Yawning



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

  1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
  2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
  3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
  4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)

So the joke is on you again professor
I was not referring to the information on the Wikipedia page but the secondary sources found there and as your post stated:
Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.​

My challenge to you, which you clearly didn't answer was:
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources (secondary sources) are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?​
The little boy believes Wikipedia that even Wikipedia says is unreliable garbage

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

You have the intellect of a small child who is actually ignorant enough to accept the nonsense that they find on the internet and believe it and declare science settled because the dumb Mexicans and Russians who post garbage on Wikipedia say it's so. ( Sorry I forgot to mention chinks) (my bad)

Tell us about how climate change began 150 years ago
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Yawning



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

  1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
  2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
  3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
  4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)

So the joke is on you again professor
I was not referring to the information on the Wikipedia page but the secondary sources found there and as your post stated:
Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.​

My challenge to you, which you clearly didn't answer was:
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources (secondary sources) are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?​
The little boy believes Wikipedia that even Wikipedia says is unreliable garbage

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

You have the intellect of a small child who is actually ignorant enough to accept the nonsense that they find on the internet and believe it and declare science settled because the dumb Mexicans and Russians who post garbage on Wikipedia say it's so. ( Sorry I forgot to mention chinks) (my bad)

Tell us about how climate change began 150 years ago
Maybe if you repeat something often enough even you will begin to believe it.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Yawning



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

  1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
  2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
  3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
  4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)

So the joke is on you again professor
I was not referring to the information on the Wikipedia page but the secondary sources found there and as your post stated:
Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.​

My challenge to you, which you clearly didn't answer was:
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources (secondary sources) are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?​
The little boy believes Wikipedia that even Wikipedia says is unreliable garbage

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

You have the intellect of a small child who is actually ignorant enough to accept the nonsense that they find on the internet and believe it and declare science settled because the dumb Mexicans and Russians who post garbage on Wikipedia say it's so. ( Sorry I forgot to mention chinks) (my bad)

Tell us about how climate change began 150 years ago
Maybe if you repeat something often enough even you will begin to believe it.
Maybe if you grow up you will figure out that the internet exist to make money, not to be real.................


What is fake on the internet?????????????????
A lot, as it turns out. An early sign of the coming infopocalypse came in the form of A Gay Girl in Damascus. The blog chronicled the life of its author, Amina Arraf, a 35-year-old gay Syrian woman participating in an uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. It quickly found a global audience, who became enraptured with Arraf’s moving prose and vivid description of queer life in the Middle East. The Guardian described her as “an unlikely hero of revolt in a conservative country.”

Until June 6, 2011, when a different kind of post appeared on the blog. It was a panicked update from Arraf’s cousin explaining that she had been thrown into the back of red minivan by three mysterious men in downtown Damascus. News of the kidnapping quickly spread around the globe, resulting in reports from The Guardian, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, and more. A “Free Amina” campaign led to the creation of posters and other websites. The State Department even reportedly started an investigation into her disappearance.


Six days after the so-called kidnapping, the truth emerged: The gay girl from Damascus was a straight 40-year-old American man from Georgia named Tom.


The blog, social media accounts, and nearly six years of forum postings under the name Amina Arraf were all fake. The hoax rocked the blogosphere and marked a turning point in public awareness of digital deception. The Washington Post said it illustrated the “ease of fudging authenticity online.”

The internet has always been awash with deception, dating to the web’s earliest days. A 1998 paper by Judith Donath, a researcher and adviser at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, detailed the effects of trolling, misinformation, and disinformation on Usenet groups.

Yawn, tell us more about reality now professor
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Yawning



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

  1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
  2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
  3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
  4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)

So the joke is on you again professor
I was not referring to the information on the Wikipedia page but the secondary sources found there and as your post stated:
Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.​

My challenge to you, which you clearly didn't answer was:
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources (secondary sources) are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?​
The little boy believes Wikipedia that even Wikipedia says is unreliable garbage

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

You have the intellect of a small child who is actually ignorant enough to accept the nonsense that they find on the internet and believe it and declare science settled because the dumb Mexicans and Russians who post garbage on Wikipedia say it's so. ( Sorry I forgot to mention chinks) (my bad)

Tell us about how climate change began 150 years ago
Maybe if you repeat something often enough even you will begin to believe it.
Maybe if you grow up you will figure out that the internet exist to make money, not to be real.................


What is fake on the internet?????????????????
A lot, as it turns out. An early sign of the coming infopocalypse came in the form of A Gay Girl in Damascus. The blog chronicled the life of its author, Amina Arraf, a 35-year-old gay Syrian woman participating in an uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. It quickly found a global audience, who became enraptured with Arraf’s moving prose and vivid description of queer life in the Middle East. The Guardian described her as “an unlikely hero of revolt in a conservative country.”

Until June 6, 2011, when a different kind of post appeared on the blog. It was a panicked update from Arraf’s cousin explaining that she had been thrown into the back of red minivan by three mysterious men in downtown Damascus. News of the kidnapping quickly spread around the globe, resulting in reports from The Guardian, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, and more. A “Free Amina” campaign led to the creation of posters and other websites. The State Department even reportedly started an investigation into her disappearance.


Six days after the so-called kidnapping, the truth emerged: The gay girl from Damascus was a straight 40-year-old American man from Georgia named Tom.


The blog, social media accounts, and nearly six years of forum postings under the name Amina Arraf were all fake. The hoax rocked the blogosphere and marked a turning point in public awareness of digital deception. The Washington Post said it illustrated the “ease of fudging authenticity online.”

The internet has always been awash with deception, dating to the web’s earliest days. A 1998 paper by Judith Donath, a researcher and adviser at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, detailed the effects of trolling, misinformation, and disinformation on Usenet groups.

Yawn, tell us more about reality now professor
Again you go off on a tangent and fail to address my challenge.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
No one has studied life arising from pond scum for any amount of time
let me know when you've read through the 450+ citations and sources in Wikipedia and we can discuss it from a place of knowledge.
Now tell us more of what you proved by using the internet
Maybe that scientists have studied, researched, experimented, and written over 450 times about life arising from pond scum. You on the other hand don't even have to read Wikipedia because you came to the table with all the answers.
You are literally professing your stupidity to any and all.

3,740,000 reasons why Wikipedia is not credible. LOL your 450 is rather pathetically ignorant, seriously Wikipedia claims itself that it is not a reliable source


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea's Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom. North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the "article," "discussion," "edit this page" and ...
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
Teachinghistory.org
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy. While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative ...
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? | KnowsWhy.com
Why is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Wikipedia is a good source for getting information. But, it is not always that it can be relied upon. Each of the Wikipedia articles has a disclaimer given along with it. It says that the article published may not have accurate information completely.
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? - Connors ...
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? – Connors State College
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source.
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source
Why not? Wikipedia Fifth Most Frequented Website. Ever since Wikipedia debuted on the Internet, it has proved to be a wealth of information for anyone who is searching for answers. Today, it is the fifth most frequented website in the world, according to Alexa.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and accuracy of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition.Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who generate content with editorial oversight provided by other volunteer editors in the form of self-enforced and community-generated policies and guidelines.
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Is Wikipedia a credible source? - Paperpile
Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable by Stephanie ...
10 reasons that Wikipedia is unreliable
It says so on Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is "not a primary source" and that "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its "About"
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is ... - eNotes
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source? | eNotes
Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.

More Results




Now tell us more professor

t8hyb-1456340590-206-lists-header_professor.jpg


It's not a living, it's a waste of life..................... Mickey

Alan-Dershowitz-massage.jpg


The funny thing about you and Alan is you are both so completely morbidly stupid that you both believed that you had a chance.......................
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?

Personally I think it is stupid to Shoot the Messenger. (Is that description unreliable?)
Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Yawning



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

  1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
  2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
  3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
  4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)

So the joke is on you again professor
I was not referring to the information on the Wikipedia page but the secondary sources found there and as your post stated:
Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.​

My challenge to you, which you clearly didn't answer was:
So you are saying that none of the 450+ citations and sources (secondary sources) are accurate? If that is the case you should be able to show us at least one that is inaccurate?​
The little boy believes Wikipedia that even Wikipedia says is unreliable garbage

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

You have the intellect of a small child who is actually ignorant enough to accept the nonsense that they find on the internet and believe it and declare science settled because the dumb Mexicans and Russians who post garbage on Wikipedia say it's so. ( Sorry I forgot to mention chinks) (my bad)

Tell us about how climate change began 150 years ago
Maybe if you repeat something often enough even you will begin to believe it.
Maybe if you grow up you will figure out that the internet exist to make money, not to be real.................


What is fake on the internet?????????????????
A lot, as it turns out. An early sign of the coming infopocalypse came in the form of A Gay Girl in Damascus. The blog chronicled the life of its author, Amina Arraf, a 35-year-old gay Syrian woman participating in an uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. It quickly found a global audience, who became enraptured with Arraf’s moving prose and vivid description of queer life in the Middle East. The Guardian described her as “an unlikely hero of revolt in a conservative country.”

Until June 6, 2011, when a different kind of post appeared on the blog. It was a panicked update from Arraf’s cousin explaining that she had been thrown into the back of red minivan by three mysterious men in downtown Damascus. News of the kidnapping quickly spread around the globe, resulting in reports from The Guardian, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, and more. A “Free Amina” campaign led to the creation of posters and other websites. The State Department even reportedly started an investigation into her disappearance.


Six days after the so-called kidnapping, the truth emerged: The gay girl from Damascus was a straight 40-year-old American man from Georgia named Tom.


The blog, social media accounts, and nearly six years of forum postings under the name Amina Arraf were all fake. The hoax rocked the blogosphere and marked a turning point in public awareness of digital deception. The Washington Post said it illustrated the “ease of fudging authenticity online.”

The internet has always been awash with deception, dating to the web’s earliest days. A 1998 paper by Judith Donath, a researcher and adviser at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, detailed the effects of trolling, misinformation, and disinformation on Usenet groups.

Yawn, tell us more about reality now professor
Again you go off on a tangent and fail to address my challenge.
LOL Corky issues a challenge.........................

universe_is_made_of_morons_sticker.jpg
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,248
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List