evil_gop_liars Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 ...Then there's a online encyclopedia for you. DinosaurFrom Conservapedia Jump to: navigation, search The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Latin for "terrible lizard". Dinosaurs were a group of large lizards that previously lived in abundance on Earth. Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (except for birds, which many scientists consider to be descended from early therapod dinosaurs). They claim the fossil evidence supports their beliefs. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. [2] [3] For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. [4] A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. [5] An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing [6][7] The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." [8] The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. [9] Some Christians reject the Theory of Evolution and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the Young Earth Creationists believe, based primarily on Biblical sources, but also drawing on archeological and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week[10], approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants[11]; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[12]; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[13]; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today[14]. Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the Bible obviously does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs. [15] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 So... are these supposed to be the scientific 'facts' of Earths past, or some sort of reference to more awkward statements offered in a man-made book titled "The Bible"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 thread has very possible lockability features Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Conservapedia seems to be the idiotic right-wing response to the generally idiotic Wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 thread has very possible lockability features Yes.... I know.. DMD (and maybe Big John too) have been putting their foot down lately, and somehow I find that many of the threads get locked after something I say. Maybe it's because of that one late night where I was a little drunk and in a giddy mood to 'test' the limit of DMD's patients. I believe I even titled a post to inform both DMD and Big John that if they knew the future they'd probably lock - or delete - my posts before I even wrote 'em up. Something like that... Anyway, I suppose I've said enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Yes.... I know.. DMD (and maybe Big John too) have been putting their foot down lately, and somehow I find that many of the threads get locked after something I say. Maybe it's because of that one late night where I was a little drunk and in a giddy mood to 'test' the limit of DMD's patients. I believe I even titled a post to inform both DMD and Big John that if they knew the future they'd probably lock - or delete - my posts before I even wrote 'em up. Something like that... Anyway, I suppose I've said enough. got to test the limits ( and perimeters ) sometime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 got to test the limits ( and perimeters ) sometime I can strike at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I like science, I just don't like science with facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 3, 2007 Author Share Posted March 3, 2007 I like science, I just don't like science with facts. We know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Myopia Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I like science, I just don't like science with facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Conservapedia seems to be the idiotic right-wing response to the generally idiotic Wikipedia. I've never understood the people who hate on Wikipedia. I find it to be fantastical in general. It is accurate, up-to-date, and technically deep for 99.99+% of its articles. Sure, the wiki format is somewhat vulnerable to vandals, but there have been procedures put in place to prevent much of that. Besides, who really cares if the Wikipedia article for Republicans gets vandalized by skins? It's usually fixed in a very short period of time. And who really needs to look up Republicans, Democrats, and abortion to know what they are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I've never understood the people who hate on Wikipedia. I find it to be fantastical in general. It is accurate, up-to-date, and technically deep for 99.99+% of its articles. Sure, the wiki format is somewhat vulnerable to vandals, but there have been procedures put in place to prevent much of that. Besides, who really cares if the Wikipedia article for Republicans gets vandalized by skins? It's usually fixed in a very short period of time. And who really needs to look up Republicans, Democrats, and abortion to know what they are? Dude - wiki is the worst because it allows you to think it operates like you say when infact any article can be edited at any time, and like many textbooks has errors all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 3, 2007 Author Share Posted March 3, 2007 Dude - wiki is the worst because it allows you to think it operates like you say when infact any article can be edited at any time, and like many textbooks has errors all over the place. Like this little tidbit The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.” Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia admin-istrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia—a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia—as a “community manager”; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.” Which makes this letter he wrote defending wikipedia worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Dude - wiki is the worst because it allows you to think it operates like you say when infact any article can be edited at any time, and like many textbooks has errors all over the place. Your criticism of the editability of Wikipedia is valid, but very overblown. How many Wikipedia articles really have factual flaws? Given the usage of Wikipedia, I really don't think that there are many with true factual flaws. Other than those that are on hot-button political issues, how many articles really have issues with people maliciously editing them? Almost none. What would be the motivation to do such a thing? Wiki is the combination of collaboration and peer-review. How is a Wikipedia article about the Fillmore administration that is the product of dozens of wiki authors who are history buffs any different than an encyclopedia entry that may have had one author, a couple of peer reviews, and an editor's review? If anything, I bet the Wikipedia entry has more and better information. And if you dive into the discussion, you're privvy to more information. It's flawed logic to consider any one source of information definitive, whether it be Wikipedia, the AP, or Encyclopedia Brittanica. If that's the best argument against Wikipedia, it is a weak one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Like this little tidbit Which makes this letter he wrote defending wikipedia worthless. My point exactly. If I felt inclined I could use this thread as a source on any wiki page and it would be available on the web until one of their people came by and took it down. In the meantime, anyone who read it during that period wpould think it's legit. They don't want to 'get it' because they're making too much money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error#External_links Go here, and at the very bottom at external links there is a [1] in the brackets. It is this thread. I could have very easily changed the body of the text, but my point is made. How long until this gets taken down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error#External_links Go here, and at the very bottom at external links there is a [1] in the brackets. It is this thread. I could have very easily changed the body of the text, but my point is made. How long until this gets taken down? I don't think that anyone argues that it is impossible do what you did, or even worse. All you've done is shown that it is possible to edit a Wikipedia entry to put in questionable information. Considering that the point you've proven has already been conceded, I don't see what you've accomplished. What your action will likely also show is that what I contend is true: that your edit will be reviewed and likely eliminated. I have no idea how long this may take, but given that you put in a relatively innocuous edit into an article that isn't viewed as a likely vandalism target, it may take a while. Regardless, how is this different than publishing a book with faulty information? Does that somehow prove that books are faulty sources of information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I don't think that anyone argues that it is impossible do what you did, or even worse. All you've done is shown that it is possible to edit a Wikipedia entry to put in questionable information. Considering that the point you've proven has already been conceded, I don't see what you've accomplished. What your action will likely also show is that what I contend is true: that your edit will be reviewed and likely eliminated. I have no idea how long this may take, but given that you put in a relatively innocuous edit into an article that isn't viewed as a likely vandalism target, it may take a while. Regardless, how is this different than publishing a book with faulty information? Does that somehow prove that books are faulty sources of information? Well no. But in the case of the Britannica, suppose there's an error in the 2006 edition. If they find it and are made aware of it it will be changed for the next edition. Now, what are the chances of that error re-appearing in an edition after that? Most likely 0%. Wiki can find my link, eliminate it in a week and then I can go and put it back. Wiki is open to vandalism and shouldn't be trusted because frankly you don't know what's been edited at any given point, much less altered. IMO it's no more than a quick novelty that you use at your own risk. It doesn't appear to meet academic standards in any meaningful way, except that the spelling appears to be solid. In fact, if a teacher allows Wiki, he runs the risk of the student who uses the page actually editing his source to back up his paper. I could write a paper about how the sky is green and alter wiki to back up my claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Like this little tidbit Which makes this letter he wrote defending wikipedia worthless. Nice ad hominem there. If the discussion is only about the citation of Wikipedia for academic work, that would temper my arguments a bit. I can see some rational arguments for disallowing using Wikipedia as a primary reference. However, that really seems like a straw man argument to me. For true research publication, the information contained in Wikipedia is far, far too general to be useful. For education (e.g., middle school through undergrad term papers and the like), I think that the real issue is that old-school teachers and profs are loathe to adjust their teaching styles in light the fact that Wikipedia and the internet in general make information much more easily collected and disseminated than when they were going through school. It's a bit like my high school composition teacher forcing everyone to use the outline-first draft-second draft hand-written style of composition, even though it was very clear that word processors made that style of composition obsolete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Maybe I'm off, but I always figure Wiki as a just a deeper google - i get info, i know it's mostly "opinion" but in most cases it serves my need. I think of it as simply a compendium of every message board in america, with very heavy handed moderators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error#External_links Go here, and at the very bottom at external links there is a [1] in the brackets. It is this thread. I could have very easily changed the body of the text, but my point is made. How long until this gets taken down? That is awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Maybe I'm off, but I always figure Wiki as a just a deeper google - i get info, i know it's mostly "opinion" but in most cases it serves my need. I think of it as simply a compendium of every message board in america, with very heavy handed moderators. Most of it isn't opinion, it's historical fact. Look up any historical figure and the entry will pretty much match every other general info source. Likewise geography, physics, etc, etc. It's a very handy resource, as long as you don't assume that all of Wiki is as good as every other part. The current politics pages are rubbish due to the constant vandalism and bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Most of it isn't opinion, it's historical fact. Look up any historical figure and the entry will pretty much match every other general info source. Likewise geography, physics, etc, etc. It's a very handy resource, as long as you don't assume that all of Wiki is as good as every other part. The current politics pages are rubbish due to the constant vandalism and bias. Add science, technology, mythology, geography, language, and just about any other topic that isn't politics to the "factual" column. Which, as I've said before, is 99.9+% of the articles on Wikipedia. Even the politically-charged articles are pretty darned good. I haven't found anything grossly wrong with any of these (not that I've examined every word). George W. Bush Abortion Evolution, Creationism, & Intelligent Design Republican Party Democratic Party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 i am the dinosaurs jockey's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.