Wikipedia.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Yes.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I'll take your word for it.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I'll take your word for it.

Originally posted by rubberjaw30
so what are the rules on the abejnood haiku?

Originally posted by Nordlys
I don't know, ask schakuhr.

Originally posted by rubberjaw30
I thought you were running it.

Objective claims to factual knowledge are really just democratic consensus, if the world agrees, it's true.

Originally posted by Starrman
Objective claims to factual knowledge are really just democratic consensus, if the world agrees, it's true.

Originally posted by Zadadka
An awful lot of folk post references that are made in Wikipedia, as if it were a divine oracle.
I'm not saying it's not, but it [b]is after all the product of some knowledge and (probably) more opinion...if no one counters a Wiki entry, it is accepted by rote (by and large).

Reminds me of something....

Ah, yes, I have it now....

2000 years from now, will we swear upon the Wiki ??[/b]

Originally posted by Zadadka
Instead of some anonymous website, how about we just accepted the word of Stocky? Got to Love 'Im.

Originally posted by Zadadka
Instead of some anonymous website, how about we just accepted the word of Cartoon. God Love 'Im.

Originally posted by Starrman
Objective claims to factual knowledge are really just democratic consensus, if the world agrees, it's true.

Originally posted by stocken
Yes! In me you should put your trust. 😏

The accuracy of Wikipedia is no less than the web as a whole, and in some ways better. However, now Google searches inevitably turn up Wikipedia (and Amazon), and dozens of sites that are no more than parasites on these two as most of the top 20-30 for most searches.

"So long as opinions are counted, rather than weighed, the better part will be overcome by the greater." John Calvin

Originally posted by Zadadka

Reminds me of something....

Ah, yes, I have it now....

2000 years from now, will we swear upon the Wiki ??