Letterman's offensive remarks about Sarah and Willow Palin

[HebrewHammer]

Meant Letterman. Got them mixed up.

[51percent]

I got knocked up by A-Rod.

[Emperor Dragon ARX]

Well Letterman apparently came out and admitted his joke was distasteful, anyways.

I've never seen any inaccurate information at all on Wikipedia. If you can cite some, go for it, otherwise, you're being dishonest when trashing wiki.

I'd rather have an online encyclopedia with millions of fact checkers than a series of hardcover books written by some revisionist liberals in the English industry.

[Bucks]

I've never seen any inaccurate information at all on Wikipedia. If you can cite some, go for it, otherwise, you're being dishonest when trashing wiki.

I'd rather have an online encyclopedia with millions of fact checkers than a series of hardcover books written by some revisionist liberals in the English industry.

But I have seen pertinent information OMITTED.

.

[Susanna]

If you are going to wikipedia for information, how do you know it's accurate?

[Emperor Dragon ARX]

If you are going to wikipedia for information, how do you know it's accurate?

How do we know any encyclopedia is accurate? After all, they're not even capable of having user comments to begin with, whereas with a wiki, the standard is to have verifiable sources at the very least.

[Susanna]

How do we know any encyclopedia is accurate? After all, they're not even capable of having user comments to begin with, whereas with a wiki, the standard is to have verifiable sources at the very least.

Well, perhaps the commercial Encyclopedias are less reliable than they used to be. But on the other hand, anyone can change wiki (although I realize it's monitored). And I believe it has been strongly indicated that where politics are involved, they definitely lean to the left. Sorta like snopes.

[JewishConservative]

Letterman was always scum. It wasn't hard to figure that out./

[Emperor Dragon ARX]

Well, perhaps the commercial Encyclopedias are less reliable than they used to be. But on the other hand, anyone can change wiki (although I realize it's monitored). And I believe it has been strongly indicated that where politics are involved, they definitely lean to the left. Sorta like snopes.

Anyone can change wiki IF they have verifiable sources. People have already tried changing Wikipedia entries thinking they could just change something, and it would always get reverted... BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T INCLUDE VERIFIABLE SOURCES.

And yes, it leans to the left in some areas of politics, and right in other areas of politics. It simply depends on whether there are verifiable sources. And if not, there will always be stuff about it on the discussion page. I'm not going to say Wiki should be used as a source, but it sure as hell makes for a better reference than any encyclopedia to date.

[Susanna]

Anyone can change wiki IF they have verifiable sources. People have already tried changing Wikipedia entries thinking they could just change something, and it would always get reverted... BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T INCLUDE VERIFIABLE SOURCES.

And yes, it leans to the left in some areas of politics, and right in other areas of politics. It simply depends on whether there are verifiable sources. And if not, there will always be stuff about it on the discussion page. I'm not going to say Wiki should be used as a source, but it sure as hell makes for a better reference than any encyclopedia to date.

I have to admit, never having use Wiki extensively, I can't say with authority; although I understand they are pretty good on normal factual stuff that doesn't have any political reason to affect it.

We've got an ancient encyclopedia ('57, I think); FC would like to replace it with one from the early '70's - before PC got too strong a hold.

As far as changing it - I daresay some entries could get by for a short time without verification; I doubt if they are on the ball 24 hours a day.