Wiki's are blamed for providing mis-information and failing test scores. Why do believers reference them?

Question

Kids in Scotland are failing tests not because they’re dumb, or because they haven’t properly prepared, but because Wikipedia is evil and mean and littered with inaccuracies.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/06/22/parents-blame-kids-failing-test-scores-on-wikipedia/

Yet "believers" always reference Wiki sites for their material. They must know the information on these sites is biased, made up and inaccurate, unless that is what you already believe?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AumElUra3MMVI5vpkhD3g6wS.Rd.;_ylv=3?qid=20080701150139AA4FWl4

Or do you give thought and weight to scientist from the Danish Space Agency (Dutch NASA) who tells us that changes in the Sun causes changes in our climate?

Changes in the sun contribute to climate change. Solar activity has been exceptionally high in the 20th century compared to the last 400 years and possibly compared to the past 8,000 years.

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_sections/Sun_Climate.aspx

Answer 1

The answer is:  IT is EASY!  End of explanation.

EDIT: Changes in the sun contribute to climate change. Solar activity has been exceptionally high in the 20th century compared to the last 400 years and possibly compared to the past 8,000 years.

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research...

Daily Sun: 02 Jul 08

The sun is blank--no sunspots.

Credit: SOHO/MDI

What does this have to do with global warming?

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Since the beginning of the 24th Sunspot cycle there have been less sun spots than in the less 10,000 yrs since the Maunder Minimum....What does this have to do with global warming?  Less energy being sent toward the Earth and reducing the atmoshperic warming...

Answer 2

anyone stupid enough to believe wikipedia deserves to fail

Answer 3

Wiki is agenda driven. I read an article (the link has been removed) which stated how there was misinformation regarding a "denier" on the Wiki site. His friend tried to over write the misstatements after talking to the "denier", but was unable to make the changes. Seems one of the moderators would not allow the corrections from the friend as it did not fit the moderators agenda. I have provided the original link I had, but the article appears to have been removed.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper...

Answer 4

Wikipedia is invaluable for basic facts and charts, plus it has links to many of its references.  No, it's not perfect and should never be taken as gospel especially on complicated subjects.

Also, Dana's wiki is not wikipedia.

Answer 5

But for my answer I will make it more simplier and I don't want long answers.  just like the equation of einstein E=MC2

People are not borned perfect you know so bared with it.

Answer 6

Your original premise is faulty and your source is weak.  Providing credible sources and backing them up with other credible sources is sound policy.

In any case, ultimately the one who is responsible for their test score is the individual.  

Wikipedia is not "mean" or "evil," and yes, it is littered with inaccuracies, but I think Dana addressed that very nicely.  If you were a gentleman, you would concede the point.

Not going to lower myself by addressing the rest of it.

Answer 7

Well, it doesn't really do any good to use non-Wiki sources if you only use what you like and disregard the rest of what they say.  Did you happen to miss this on the Danish Space Agency site?

"Climate is subject to influences by both natural and human forces, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar activity, and land use change."

I'm pretty sure that none of the AGW proponents on here would disagree with this statement, but I'm pretty sure you've disagreed with such statements in the past (if you'd let us see your past answers we could tell for sure).  So do you agree with the Danish Space Agency about this? It would be great to see you finally admit that there are human forces to climate change.

Answer 8

Wiki is two things.  It can present facts and data on past events with relative accuracy, though not always.

On speculative ideas and theories, it very much tends to be a site of opinions, often related to personal beliefs or greater agendas.  In this area it can be very innacurate because of bias and should be used with relative caution, in other words taken with a grain of salt.

Answer 9

Wikipedia's growing bias is well known. From saying that notable american inventions and inventors are "in dispute" to removing posts that disagree with the established view.

Without facts on their side, believers need to have a source of "data" to reference that "proves" their point. What better source than the easily manipulated and self referencing fact vacuum Wiki has become?

Did I mention that I am Santa Clause? It's true! Here I can prove it by posting several links to sites I made that each confirm what I believe. They must be true because site A references site B, and that site HAS to be true because it references site A.

Gw believers are getting carbon credits in their stocking this year...

Answer 10

Wiki can definitely be inaccurate because anyone can contribute and knowing how a lot of people are..they will make up stuff just for "kicks". That is why most colleges will not accept Wiki as a reference for a research paper ! But if you still want to use Wiki...just check out the references that are listed at the bottom of the article.

Answer 11

The Internet is the great equalizer, the great leveler.  Now everyone has access to information.  Notice I didn't say truth, I said information.

With a critical mind you separate the wheat from the chaff.  The reason test scores are bad (everywhere it seems) is because the trick is not to teach facts rote, but to teach critical thinking.

The reactionary forces of the world restrict access to the Internet whenever and wherever possible.  I'm not just talking about China and other repressive governments; I'm talking about telecommunications companies and others who want to charge for preferential access.  Without a net neutrality law, contrary information that challenges the status quo will be impossible to find.  

The Internet could be the tool that allows a great awakening in world culture.

It's no wonder you fear it.

Answer 12

Most "Believers' are intelligent people who have an education that go's beyond high school, which I doubt you even come close to.

Answer 13

Talk about calling the kettle black...

As usual, jelly, you are deliberately distorting the truth.

You give one example of an issue and make it into "always"; I doubt you'd pass any statistics course with that reasoning!

At least wiki is a start (and Jaded gives a good response on how intelligent people are meant to view wiki citations).

The main reason why the skeptics don't give wiki as a source is because they usually don't give any source (see link below - 12 skeptical answers, zero citations).

The link to DSA (and it is an in-joke to call it the "Dutch NASA", not reality) is good. It describes research into the connection between variable solar activity and climate - something that AGW proponents would agree is a FACTOR in climate change but not the major one (that would be human activity - see the IPCC report).

Even the link you provide states: The contribution from solar activity to global temperature increase does not exclude other contributions to rising global temperature, natural as well as human...

As a scientific topic, I think this is exactly where our debates should be:

Agreement on basic fact (in this case solar variation is a factor in climate change as is human activity).

Followed by discussion on scale and mechanism.

Note that your link simply says research is ongoing - there are no conclusions.