- Status
...Wikipedia was deemed just about as accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica, y'know.
The myth about Wikipedia being "unworthy" has been debunked on numerous occasions, especially considering the fact that "Citations" are included in every article and they rarely re-direct to Wikipedia itself. These days it's even used at Univeristy-level papers as long as there are also auxiliary sources.
LOL, I never saw that before...but I can't agree with that. Anybody who links to a Wikipedia article on serious issues is, in my opinion, a lazy researcher. Especially when it comes to issues like Zionism/the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
Wikipedia is a genuine source of information as long as you also have auxiliary sources or the article you are refering to includes citations from other verifiable sources. The world of academics accepted that and it's being used increasingly often in papers.
Wikipedia is not a source in itself, it's a bundle of citations collected in one place with an article, all information on Wikipedia is verifiable and if you disagree with something and can prove that a Wikipedia article is wrong about something, edit it and provide citations.
"Wikipedia has no credibility" is the absolute laziest counterargument. If you can't even try to come up with a good rebuttal, why bother posting at all?
Don't even bother wasting time trying to explain it to them, to them we're basically another set of Jew bashers or whatever. Though it's funny(not really)that things have gotten so far gone that you can't even criticize Israel/Jews/Zionists without some sort of backlash, even if the writing is on the board(which it is).
Just carry on and let them have their mediocre discussion about the evil Palestinians and whatnot.
Nobody claimed so - what Gahars and myself said was that Wikipedia is a credible source.
Your argument sounds along the lines of "Stop defending Burger King, the whales are responsible for global warming which in turn is a turtle conspiracy!" - Wikipedia and the Israel-Palestine issue have nothing to do with each other, they're mutually exclusive. If you think otherwise, the Conspiracy Theory Corner awaits unless you have legitimate proof of a correlation between the two subjects.
If you're going to accuse it of being inaccurate or bias, the burden of proof is on your back.
Whoa, no one said that they correlate, I sure as hell didn't anyway....I'm just saying that Wikipedia is not a good source when you want to discuss anything concerning Israel.
Even if Israel pays "Internet Workers" to create articles in their favour, those articles have to go through Moderation which works on a global scale. You can edit articles yourself if you can prove that something's inaccurate and provide proper sources.
Unless Israel is paying each and every user of the Internet (as each and every user of the Internet has the right to edit articles) to think the way they want them to, your point does not stand.
Additionally, if the articles are doctored, how come there's a whole sub-article specifically about racism againts Arabs in Israel?
That's funny because I'm unable to edit a single wikipedia article as I've tried many times. (not for political reasons).
Anyway, I'm not suggesting Israel controls the Internet, that's a little too much, rather, the Zionists who occupy the US Government are basically the ones that do, in case you haven't noticed, I'm sure you've seen many of the internet censership bills before and countless other bills regarding the internent and other things in general. When it benifits the Zionists, the Zionists of the United States Government seem very eager to put Israel first. Even if that means censoring vital information.
It's more than black and white, see through the lines and fairytales and go straight for the finish line. That's my motto. LEave no stone unturned. This whole censorship in regards to Zionists/Jews/Israel is a big pain and is there to conceal the very truth that exposes them for what they are. Though not every one of them are in some conspiracy, rather, if you look and pay attention to the people in our government, one can see clearly the Zionist ties our politicians have, and that being the case, they're able to effectiviely censor many things in regards to saving their own hides.
But that's another story for another time. No ones trying to turn this into a "conspiracy theory" discussion, rather I'm merely pointing out the faults that lie in our government that hides Israel under the shades from the public. So that said, I'm reluctant to believe every article you see that involves Israel because they're usually bias and full of disinformation.
wat bout dem craZy terrorIsts
You're calling conspiracy theory in the way that "Israel controls everything and everyone". While I won't go further here as this is not a very fruitful matter to discuss, I'll just say that Jews =/= Israeli. It's as absurd as saying every Palestinian is a terrorist (hint: they're not!). Not everyone can be made into the same mould and most people get into a certain situation not because they are Jewish, but their accomplishment/invention is good. Or will we go on debating about the ever so popular Facebook for example? It was founded by a (former) Jew Mark Zuckerberg, who considers himself an atheist at the moment.
Just going by what has been written here, do you deny the existence of Palestinian rockets or the pressure from that side of the border? If Hamas is shooting rockets and Israel retaliates with missiles (or the other way around, make your pick), are you really saying one is innocent and the other isn't? Reality check, it's innocent people getting killed. Palestinian rockets are targeted at cities with large amount of people and fired from central areas in the Palestine areas. In return, Israel tries to eliminate said launching sites and usually end up with innocent casualties. This makes it easy to justify one side attacking the other as retaliation..
I think the situation is very hard to solve in many ways, but it's quite easy to say that both sides have amends to make. It doesn't matter how many people on or the other has killed over the years. It's always wrong. If both sides would just start to talk to each other in a civil matter (Hamas admitting the existence of Israel and Israel changing its view of Hamas being a terrorist organization), a lot could be done to prevent future conflicts.
you do understand that soulx quoted an israeli news website that is talking about discrimination on the Palestinians? saying jews censorship the very truth in a topic where an israeli website is doing exactly the opposite is completely retarded
also about the zionist with ties on your politicians saving their own hides... you do understand that anyone with enough money does exactly the same regardless of his religion? or its just the evil jews that think about their self and everyone else is a poor saint? thats politics, grown up man...
lastly i wont start looking now for more articles about the armament of the palestinians beyond wiki because me as an israeli everything ill find you will just label it as "jew! you must be censoring everything, you are trying to brainwash me!"
Not getting involved in the conversation on Israel BUT on the Wikipedia note.
The whole notion of Wikipedia being "unreliable" is a bit nonsense. Wikipedia doesn't seek to make itself a scholarly source. It's simply a large mash up of information on topics to give you a general overview. Their info is cited. I can't randomly go on the Israel page on Wikipedia and say it was formed in the year 1300 BC by King Augustus Gloop and not have it removed. If I had a reliable source that said so, it would stick.
Not to mention pages prone to vandalism are often locked from the public and only accessible to reliable contributors.
While it's not scholarly neither is most things you'll quote on the internet. Saying "Wikipedia is bad" as your counterargument is A) unproductive to your argument and B) illustrates a lack of points on your side. When in an argument, dialogue, whatever, you don't want to discredit the other side, you want to illustrate that your line of thinking is better or more reliable.
The whole notion of Wikipedia being "unreliable" is a bit nonsense. Wikipedia doesn't seek to make itself a scholarly source. It's simply a large mash up of information on topics to give you a general overview. Their info is cited. I can't randomly go on the Israel page on Wikipedia and say it was formed in the year 1300 BC by King Augustus Gloop and not have it removed. If I had a reliable source that said so, it would stick.
Not to mention pages prone to vandalism are often locked from the public and only accessible to reliable contributors.
While it's not scholarly neither is most things you'll quote on the internet. Saying "Wikipedia is bad" as your counterargument is A) unproductive to your argument and B) illustrates a lack of points on your side. When in an argument, dialogue, whatever, you don't want to discredit the other side, you want to illustrate that your line of thinking is better or more reliable.
obviously, never.
I saw mentioned that, jews didn't fight back against the Nazi's, and a failure to provide mention of The Bielski Partisans prompted me to provide this link for discussion... carry on.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted_171835
- User Submitted News
- B btjunior
-
Psionic Roshambo
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@SylverReZ, I dislike the kind of drm where you have to play single player games online all the time bc of some verification bs+1
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@SylverReZ, I also heard one of the Prince of Persia games was so unfinished that it required the "24/7 online" drm so a puzzle could be done and the game could be finished. And that when the Ubisoft servers were closed the (cracked) game was impossible to finish or something like that
-
@
SylverReZ:
@Xdqwerty, That's extra scummy. Ubisoft nowadays ship out incomplete games like Skull and Bones which was being worked on for nearly a decade now.+1 -
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I like that games can be fixed after the fact, hate that it's being abused via beta tests... And DLC... I was a 7800 owner back in the day and loved Impossible Mission, turns out I couldn't beat it because it was actually impossible lol
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I never knew about it at the time but a fixed version was available but you had to mail in your broken copy lol
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
