19 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, haven't heard that. I just pick out the parts I agree with anyway. So it doesn't matter to me.
He didn't refer you to a Wikipedia link, that's a point in his favor.
By the way, have you heard about Wikipedia's 'edit wars'? Apparently people have been going in and editing other peoples contributions, and the problem has been escalating. I don't trust Widipedia except for looking at non-controversial topics, because it's the controversial topics t ...[text shortened]... so I'm not the least bit surprised Wikipedia is the preferred reference of choice here.
The Instructor
19 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadOnly the Holy Bible is inerrant. You're welcome.
It must be noted however that Wikipedia is just as good or better than any other encyclopedia.
For specific topics there may be more reliable sources and certainly there will often be sources with more information.
But no source is inerrant, not even peer reviewed material by top scientists in a given field.
If I give a Wikipedia page to support an arg ...[text shortened]... ame wars, and other bias therefore you are wrong' just doesn't constitute a counter argument.
The Instructor
