Now Jules, any further disagreement on the matter will be ignored. I've have proven I am right and you are out to lunch on this one. Deal with it and move on.

Wiki is a socially edited database source for information. As socially edited database, some, if not much, of what's written is suspect. As a main source for information, people ought to look elsewhere.

Here's a great article that supports my thesis: "Wikipedia is gaining an increasingly bad reputation in schools all over the world. Teachers will argue that Wikipedia is not a reliable source with credibility to be cited in a formal essay or term paper. Teachers believe that due to the multitude of anonymous updates, there is not enough reliable information to base ideas upon. Even if Wikipedia can detect obvious errors such as in the Einstein page case (mentioned earlier), there is no way that it can monitor every single error. "

"In my opinion, Wikipedia is acceptable to a certain extent. I do not believe that it is a “scholarly” source of information in context. There are many sources on the Internet with much more reliable information."

http://itgsonline.com/?p=224

And this rather sums it all up nicely: http://library.williams.edu/citing/wikipedia.php

First it was google... now it's wiki.. is it next ... .... ... the internet?!!?

Daniel, is this it for the next week.. wiki?? zzzzzzz zzzzzz

mckinley: Apparently, depending on the day of the week, you can't read any better than Jules. I said wiki is unreliable. I've explained why and I'm right. Jules wants to hold on to wiki as a source because he uses it so much to prove his biased points. That's what cherry pickers do.

Look up Christ myth theory from Wikipedia. You can read how many believe that Jesus wasn't even a historical figure or at least it can't be proven historically (no documented evidence).

Artful Dodger: At the Dentist?? Steve Martin is replacing ... ... ...

Your sources are less reliable, so drop wiki as a point to fight over. It's really dumb.

mckinley: No, just Art slams everything that doesn't support his ideology, I wouldn't mind it so much if he backed it up, but mostly it's just waffle that is meaningless over 'integrity'... zzzzzz zzzzzzz zzzzzz

Wiki is not a scholarly source. You need to deal with that at your next appointment.

Artful Dodger: Dan... If your 'scholarly' sources state that the democrats started WWII... well. Seeing as wiki actually gets that right, I'd believe it over anything you can produce to back up such a statement. I'd also believe the history lessons I got taught at school, the Discovery channel, the History channel and the other 99.999999% of the world who KNOW it was NOT the Democrats.

Do you seriously believe what you posted? If you do, then there is little hope for you.. I'll make sure you get to choose the colour of your jacket this time!!

Jules, must you be constantly schooled? Wiki may have some things right. It's just as a main source they aren't reliable. Everyone (except you apparently) knows that. Get current.

Iamon lyme:

Like the source that says WWII was started by the Democrats?

The Col: Of course they are. How else did for years our building firms manage to fix prices for years on many big public construction projects... It's the size of the bribes that has changed, just like the size of footballers salary has over here. It's gone to a level where the public say.. "tradition be damned".. at least here to some degree.

"I work in a business that requires sponsors,while I try and ignore it,the interests of these sponsors are not totally out of mind in reqards to issues that arise."

Of course, it's a partnership. Your giving them good advertising, but at the same time is it the type they want!

...Ok that's a basic look, but you know what I mean.

Artful Dodger: [ The "he lies" line is always followed by, "What did he lie about exactly?" ]

Well, no wonder liberals don't agree with you, you keep breaking their cardinal rules!

2 Kennedy 4: 9-11 "But to thou it shall be as sacrilege, the questioning of reason or motive; let there be questioning upon those whom we do not agree, even to not listening; but nevertheless disagreement must follow them all the days of their lives."

"Happy is he who questioneth not himself; and be not sorely vexed laying in wait to crack open coconut heads of vain knowledge, that sayeth nothing yet spilleth the milk thereof upon the ground."

Iamon lyme:what you do is get a bunch of Romney bumper stickers. Then put them on your neighbors cars etc., and watch the fun. 

Iamon lyme:I've heard that same line. The "he lies" line is always followed by, "What did he lie about exactly?" Followed by silence and then, "Everything!"   So convincing.  

Artful Dodger: [ Unhinged, violent, immature, and disgusting. All rolled up into Obama supporters. ]

This has been true in my state for a long time. It's just as liberal as the state you live in, so you know what I'm talking about. In the city where I live, anyone with a bumper sticker or yard sign showing support for a Republican candidate can expect to have his privacy or property rights violated. I'm not kidding or complaining, it's just a fact of life. And the fact is you don't have to live on the wrong side of town to be a target.

I've never put up a yard sign or put a bumper sticker on my car, and for good reason. I knew someone whose car windows were broken out. It was the only car hit by vandalism on a street full of parked cars, and the only car with a bumper sticker in favor of a Republican candidate. I happened the same year Gore was running against Bush. I also don't get into political debates with anyone who knows where I live, I just explain to them why in this country we support the idea of a secret ballot. Most of the time they don't know what I mean, or why there should be any reason for a secret ballot. They would if they were Republicans.

Artful Dodger: An eye opener for me was when someone told me she didn't like what Rush had to say, then immediately "qualified" that statement by saying she never listened to him. This was about 20 or so years ago, but I remember it very clearly. I was too stunned to ask her the obvious question... if she never listened to him, then how could she know that she didn't agree with him?

The reason it was an eye opener for me is because Rush was always telling his listeners that liberals disagree with him but never listen to his show. At that time I believed most of what he said, but at the same time I also believed some of his claims were greatly exaggerated. Since then I've discovered he doesn't exaggerate at all, about anything. Anything he has said about the liberal mindset has proven to be true.

I'm not calling her a liar, but she nearly quoted him word for word... a pretty neat trick for someone who never heard him say that. The truth of the matter is she really did not listen to his show, so she obviously got her information about him from other sources... and somewhere in that strange chain of information sharing there had to have been someone who actually listened to him, because otherwise how could any of them know they didn't agree with him? It sounds just as bizarre to me now as it did then. So never mind Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny or any other made up fantasy... as far as fantasies go they don't compare to the inner workings of the mind of liberal "realists". LoL

October 09, 2012

Obama Supporters Becoming More Unhinged As Romney Popularity Surges

Obama supporters have taken to Twitter to boast about "civil unrest" in light of new polls showing Romney with a commanding lead. Among their most proud moments:

• Tweetdowns* (verbal beatdowns aimed at dissenting voices, usually reserved for celebrities who tweet support for Romney)
  
  
• Threatening riots if Romney wins
  
  
• TWAT-ing* conservative users (A variant of SWAT-ing
  - Faking retweets to make it appear the original tweeter made a death
  threat against the President and then sending retweet to @SecretService)
  
  
• Poo Attacks

Unhinged, violent, immature, and disgusting. All rolled up into Obama supporters.

Iamon lyme: I've read a wiki page or two when I needed some quick info. It's a place to start but I always check several other sources too. If it's a political site, I try to avoid it if it's clear that it's presenting a one sided view (like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos). I laugh at my liberal friends who quote those publications to me. I pull out Rush Limbaugh and ask them if they'd accept hims as a source. They say no. Then why I ask, would I accept those other two outfits from them? No answer. Then there's the clowns that quote Rachel Maddow (Rachael MadCow). She's another "reliable" source for biased left-wing propaganda. ;)

Artful Dodger: [ ...one has to wonder why someone would quote wiki as a primary source. ]

One reason is whenever someone does a google search wiki almost always pops up at or near the top of the list, so it's an easy source to access. I've used wiki but only after reading the information first. Sometimes it's okay, and sometimes it's like you said... slanted.

When wiki first started up it was hailed as "the peoples" source, because almost anyone could contribute to it. A few years ago it was so easy to do that almost anyone could submit info (that made it into the data base) as long as it looked legit, or looked scholarly. It didn't take much to get past the gatekeepers and they didn't have time to verify everything coming in... and they weren't exactly the scholarly types anyway, if you know what I mean. I still get a kick out of some of the things I read there, because sometimes it will read like a poorly written college paper.


...and I'm being charitable when I say "college".

Iamon lyme: There are so many reliable sources that one has to wonder why someone would quote wiki as a primary source.

(V): The public are foolish if they think the top campaign donators aren't paid back through being awarded contracts and such, it happens on both sides.The new law where PACs don't need to disclose contributions is insane.I work in a business that requires sponsors,while I try and ignore it,the interests of these sponsors are not totally out of mind in reqards to issues that arise.

.. Our UK government has just had a £40 million lesson in bad tendering. A look good on the books won tender regarding the West Coast rail franchise was likely to expose the UK to a loss, if the companies who set up the train operating company were not setting the franchise enough capital to cover going bust.

The tendering now needs to be repeated!!

The Col: It'd be nice.. It might even bring a price cut nationally considering how much is spent in bribes.. *cough* sorry, lobbying each year.

(V): Outlaw lobbying(as we know it) entirely, elected officials with voting power should be beyond reproach.

The Col: I think 10% of all election advertising and 10% of all lobbying monies.

Rev Al versus Ann Coulter

or.. how loud and incoherent doesn't work.

(V): It doesn't work here in Canada either, but that's not to say we are any smarter in who we vote into office.Just less glitz and glam during elections.I still say 10% of each dollar spent on Federal election advertising should go towards the deficit.

The Col: We are luckier in the UK, we have rights when it comes to pure bull at election time.. American style razzle dazzle that Maggie imported only took slightly.

(V): Whatever it takes to seal the deal.He is dependant on most voters not paying attention, and most don't keep track of his constant contradictions, so he has a helluva chance to pull this off

The Col: White teeth speak with forked tongue?

(V): Used car salesmen display more honesty than Romney.If he pulls this off, the press should be ashamed for not fact checking this guy enough, but their too consumed with Obama's terrible performance in the 1st debate, actually, most incumbent Presidents have historically lost the 1st debate 1-5 was a score I saw recently, but the election score is 3-3

The Col: Nice when Romney says if your 45, never had insurance and get heart disease.... you are on your own.

Guess Jesus forgot to put that he healed for free in BIG BOLD LETTERS a mile high like his Father did!

I'm talking about the reputed last message of God to the universe as described by Douglas Adams.. "we apologise for the inconvenience."

God is nice like that.

I didn't watch the first debate, but I want to see the second one. Obama can't afford to phone this one in, so I'm curious to see what his strategy will be. He has to at least appear confident, that alone should be enough to inspire confidence in the supporters who don't know or understand the issues. Sad, but true.

Obama believed he had won the first debate shortly after it was over. Wow... I pity the poor fool who had to tell the president otherwise. LoL

As if by magic... .... ....

Artful Dodger: If wiki tipped to the right instead of the left then you already know what you would be hearing... nothing but complaints about wiki. But I have to assume playing politics with facts and logic is an appropriate game for anyone to play at this (the politics) board.

A few years back I read where someone intentionally submitted false information to see if wiki did any fact checking. The information was accepted, and it wasn't until a reader noticed something screwy that it was removed.

Like the source that says WWII was started by the Democrats?


Please.. Please explain how your scholarly sources explain that shift in written history... Art.

(V): Well you use wiki which is unreliable. I use scholarly sources. You, like so many of your ilk, don't know what you are talking about. You frame your narrative to fit your bias. Looks like you're the one that needs to deal with it.

It's a clear fact of history that the democratic party is the party of historical racism in this country and ALSO is the party that continues to use race baiting to further their agenda. That's a fact that can't be denied except by those that choose to believe a lie.

I frankly couldn't care less what your "opinions" are. They are meaningless. You cherry pick only those sources that suit your bias. It's your pattern. Then you twist all things to suit your narrative. Meanwhile, those of us that matter, see right though your nonsense.

Bwild:

> are you saying the US government purchases all the oil and commodities..then resells it to suppliers who in turn sell to the public?

I was getting tot he fact that Romney has been castigating China and saying that the USA "borrows" money from China to pay for the dificit. In reality the debt to China is the result of massive consumption of goods manufactured in China, rahter than the government borrowing money directly from the Chinese government.

Then I drew a parallel to the consumption of oil and natural gas. Romney says nothing about how the foreign debt is increasing as a result of oil and gas consumption from places like Saudi Arabia and Canada.

In answer to your questions, yes and no. The American government does not profit from buying and selling oil, but it controls the supply of oil through what is called the strategic reserve. This is a reserve of crude oil, distillates and gasoline that are kept in inventory in case there is ever scarcity of those products. It was created during the Opec crisis in the 1970s. IN practice, the profits remain in the hands of oil companies. If the American government was profitting from oil, there would be no soverign debt!

Art, your version of history is a myth, just like Santa.

Deal with it.

Artful Dodger: ... and the rest of the article is...

In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."

When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.

Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example

There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.

Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.

The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.

These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.

>>>>>>>

But while the academics and pundits have been discussing the possible influence of the so-called “Bradley Effect” on voters this November, there have been isolated reports of campaign volunteers encountering bigots when going door to door or making phone calls.

If that foreshadows a more overt prejudice in the campaign, the question becomes: Will the McCain campaign publicly and actively reject the “Southern Strategy” of using white racism to win elections — which allowed the Republican Party to carry the South for decades — or will it tacitly embrace it?

McCain has a unique opportunity to demonstrate what kind of candidate he really is.

http://washingtonindependent.com/10982/is-the-southern-strategy-alive-and-well

(V): the so called southern strategy narrative is bits of truth combined with huge portions of myth. If you read Trende's work on this you'd see a far more accurate and scholarly view. Wiki is not scholarly and is prone to bias. So if you're going to quote wiki as your main source, you're out of luck. Your choir will like it though.

(V): Is Wikipedia Reliable?
By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny

The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider:

Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.

Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.

Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.

Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.

The Col: .... Aye. I'm surprised it didn't 'disappear' one night, or get donated to someone with MS.. for them it's not criminal.

(V):