myledzep Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 QUOTE (AllisonAdler @ Apr 8 2008, 01:05 PM) People who happily go about asserting a thing they've heard second or even third hand, or even made entirely up, as if they actually knew something about it themselves (e.g., the b.s. epidemic in the Newbs Jimmy and the occult thread). I agree Allison....to add to that, when asserting information second/third hand and not citing the source or sources from where this information came........because sometimes the information may be inaccurate or not completely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunChild Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Well, maybe not Wikipedia. (Sorry, that's my pet peeve!) It's a good one, too. But it can make a good jumping off point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 That's a lot of clothes, good thing you do have a large washing machine! Why don't you combine school & work clothes, and casual & exercise clothes? Simplify! For my job at Boise State, I have to dress professionally. School clothes are my "teacher clothes, also professional, (like the BSU clothes). My work clothes is a uniform for my "real job." And I refuse to go to the gym in jeans, LOL. So, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake of Shadows Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Pet Peeve of the Moment... People who play the longsuffering victim People who project their failings onto somebody else and then play long-suffering victim to it. This is not my thread and I cannot remove you or your posts if you piss me off. *stomps foot* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 manderlyh, you have 89 posts in this thread nearly twice as many as the second most, You seem to have a lot of pet peeves. lol No flames just an observation. LOL When I'm tired, I'm very easily irritated. You should have heard me today. My mom came over to drop my little sister off (she's spending the night because I agreed to take her to her orthodontist appt. in the morning) and I was grouchy as hell. More than anythign, simple stupidity is my overarching pet peeve. Stupidity as in you know better that you shouldn't do X ,but you do it anyway because you're a jackass. Well, maybe not Wikipedia. (Sorry, that's my pet peeve!) LOL I had to harp on the 8th graders for searching for their "research information" on wiki. One kid was looking up floccinaucinihilipilification instead of reasearching his Holocaust topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 People who hate Wikipedia. Okay... it's not a pet peeve. It more confuses me. I know that because Wikipedia is open, it leaves room for anyone to put up anything. However, the people who run the site do work to maintain a level of quality. Plus, most sources are cited, so if you don't trust what the article itself is saying, you can always go down to the cited source and check that, instead. I have rarely found wrong information and never found misleading information on Wikipedia. In fact, when doing research, I'll use Wikipedia as a base to find more "accepted" sources. IMHO, Wikipedia gets a bad rap just for being so open. They are trustworthy, if you give them a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panglos Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 The fact that anyone can contribute also allows information scholars may not be aware of. Often tidbits are included that could otherwise be unknown. Even officials can make mistakes and if an ordinary person sees that, they can correct it. Of course it goes both ways, that's when you check the various sources to conclude the facts. Commoners possess a wealth of information and wikipedia is a place they can share that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I don't hate Wikipedia, but it's definitely not where you go for reliable information. I go there all of the time for general information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 coronapete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunChild Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 ^^ Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNK Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I hate it when I go into a public bathroom and open the door to the only available stall, only see that someone has urinated all over the toilet seat. Then, you either have to clean the seat if you are really desperate, or you just lift the fucker, and take a piss. But the problem is, when you leave, the next guy that goes in is gonna think you're the asshole that pissed all over the seat. But seriously, what kind of lazy degenerate is going to piss all over a toilet seat? Who the FUCK does THAT? I see this all the time. At work, we have a single bathroom, and we got a couple new guys, and it started to happen.......I began my investigation to find who it could be. Eventually I couldn't, but I spread the word and it stopped. Why the fuck can't you just lift the damn seat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I hate it when I go into a public bathroom and open the door to the only available stall, only see that someone has urinated all over the toilet seat. Then, you either have to clean the seat if you are really desperate, or you just lift the fucker, and take a piss. But the problem is, when you leave, the next guy that goes in is gonna think you're the asshole that pissed all over the seat. But seriously, what kind of lazy degenerate is going to piss all over a toilet seat? Who the FUCK does THAT? I see this all the time. At work, we have a single bathroom, and we got a couple new guys, and it started to happen.......I began my investigation to find who it could be. Eventually I couldn't, but I spread the word and it stopped. Why the fuck can't you just lift the damn seat? It must start at a young age. My wife works in an elemenary school. There are a couple of little boys who do this on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 OK, Wikipedia. It does have some very useful information. It also has information that is totally inaccurate. And how are you to tell the difference, given that the reason you looked the topic up in the first place was that you knew nothing about it? When I check topics I DO know about on it, often it's correct, sometimes it isn't, often it's half and half. That's not what I call a reliable source. None of my students is allowed to use it for research information. Though if it's not something important and you're just looking out of curiosity, I guess it's fine. Incidentally, instead of doing all that additional checking, you could just go to something that IS reliable, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panglos Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Did you overlook the couple of posts that mentioned going to further sources when your subject matter is important? Even when I'm researching something of true importance I use several sources. Any publication can be flawed, even Funk and Wagnall's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panglos Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Even Encyclopedia Brittanica might not have some useful and interesting material that wikipedia might contain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Did you overlook the couple of posts that mentioned going to further sources when your subject matter is important? Even when I'm researching something of true importance I use several sources. Any publication can be flawed, even Funk and Wagnall's., No, I didn't overlook it. That's why I suggested going to a reliable source in the first place. Obviously if you're doing serious research, you use multiple sources; THAT's why I said if you're just curious, Wiki is fine. I do this for a living, and I'm damned if I'm going to get into a fight over Wikipedia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panglos Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I noticed you went back in to edit your post to include the "disclaimers" of the previous posts. I've just found amateur offerings can be as good or even sometime exceed professional material, depending on subject and conditions. Well rounded is the key to me, not just trusting one source or "type" of source but overlooked, underappreciated sources as well. Inclusion, not exclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I edited my post because I forgot to mention that going to a reliable source in the first place could save time--I omitted to cover that part of Nathan's post. If that's what you mean. That's a problem, is it? And my point still stands that if you can't tell whether the material you're reading is highly reliable or not at all reliable, even if there's a 10% chance it's incorrect, it's therefore still not reliable, period. I'm all in favor of using multiple sources for serious research, as I said; it's essential, in fact. But Wiki is not a source to be used for anything but fun. I'm now done with it, and as always whenever I post anything on this board, I wish I'd never mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panglos Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 That's fine if you don't like challenges to your posts. It's also fine what you said about wikipedia being used for fun. Often times the research you are doing is for fun and that can include information from contributors the scholars might've not included in Hail Brittania. As I said, depends on the subject and conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Why the hell are you being so belligerent about Wikipedia????? I don't see that you're even disagreeing with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panglos Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Why the hell are you being so belligerent about Wikipedia????? I don't see that you're even disagreeing with me! No belligerence of my part at all. I'm expounding on the subject not closing it off as wikipedia being so useless, even for important material. Not just fun. You were the one coming in initially challenging the pro-wikipedia posts. That seems a bit more belligerent than my defending posts toward the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I wasn't challenging anything, I was disagreeing, as people do in this thread. They discuss and disagree with each other's viewpoints, usually in a lighthearted way, they don't "challenge each other's posts"--that's the second time you've used that expression. You're taking this way too seriously! And you obviously have some sort of problem with me, so let's not pursue this further. I've made my point clear, I stand by it, but a hell of a lot of other things are far more important, it's not worth pursuing. Back to the t.p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Get off Helen's ass already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Another pet peeve is not having fun when I should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 , No, I didn't overlook it. That's why I suggested going to a reliable source in the first place. Obviously if you're doing serious research, you use multiple sources; THAT's why I said if you're just curious, Wiki is fine. I do this for a living, and I'm damned if I'm going to get into a fight over Wikipedia! I agree, Aqua. This is the schpeil we give the 8th graders: The difference between a publication like Wikipedia and a published research source is that while Wiki may have some really good ideas on your subject, the published research has been fact checked and edited by someone who double checks those kinds of things for a living. Which is why Wiki isn't a good source if you want to really research it. Like I said, I look at Wiki for general knowledge about something, byt not research beyond basic facts. Don 't ever expect to use it for any kind of credibility verification like using it as a citation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.