--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I assume Wiki would not rely on your impressions either. Since they > > are um "piss-poor". > > True enough. Wikipedia requires some kind of citation for everything. There are quite a > few guidelines for what can be said and how it must be cited and what kind of citations are > acceptable.
i am not challenging you on the rules, but i read a lot of wikipedia, and there LOTS of statements without cites. In time, more cites come. But articles without exhastive cites are not, generally, deleted. Articles get better over time. i find Wiki to be an incredible resourse. And I love their related projects. WikiBooks -- textbooks on many of not all subjects eventually -- free of charge, and instantly distributable. WikiSource -- free online text content WikiCommons -- free online media content And my favorite Wikiversity -- developing -- but eventually on-line lectures, course materials, tests, certification, etc, for all disciplines. potentially, a free, on-line, university education for anyone world wide. > > > > But your Wiki reference is instersting. Is your logic stream leading > > you to conclude that if something is not published, it is unreliable? > > If not, why did you bring up the Wiki reference? > > Just to point out that the dependence on the Sexy Sadie and other such material ... doesn't even rise to the level of relibability a > Wikipedia entry. i got it. as to SS material being " used to justify much of what is said here" --- see below. Your perspective is quite different than mine on the material being used as "justification" and "attacks" > > > > Do you know what is in your refrigerator? Or what your GF, if and when > > you have one, likes? Are these things published anywhere? Is your > > informatin for such matters relaible? > > > > Is such information used to justify attacks on people and organizations? Is such used to > justify the arguments made in favor of such attacks? i don't know if you textually attack ex-GFs or not. :) However, while I am sure you can cite examples of the SS material being used to "justify attacks on people and organizations" -- i don't think thats the majority use. If I am typical, I read it, said ok, "interesting" -- raised some issues about bias and perspective (Ned comes to mind) -- and then went ahead with my day. I didn't use the material to attack M or the TMO. I doubt more than a handful of readers use it that way. Except of course the "sociopaths" :) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
