The Danger of Using the Internet as Reference

I remember a few people complaining about certain things that were included in EB, and supporting their own claims with reference from internet websites. I know sometimes it's hard to come up with information on certain topics, and that websites that have really specific knowledge are extremely rare, but we should be mindfull that they might not be correct.

I think I can speak for everyone in EB (don't take this too literally), that this kind of act will not validate your claims towards the mod, if anything it will do the exact opposite. Why start this thread now? Well, I was reading some news, and this came up...link

Watch out for this type of thing, it's not that uncommon, the internet is not a sure thing.

.
Letting everybody add something for the spread of knowledge sounds essentially good. But that's an example of what happens when you don't control the the intent, the content and authencity of it.

Wiki lost credibility for me long ago. It's a playground of nationalists, revivalists, fantasizers, skepticals, believers, deniers.....whatever type you can think of with a lot of free time in their hands. (That said, there is still plenty of good information there but one has to know what to be looking for and how.)

~:handball:
.

I think its safe to say that with anything, you have to keep your wits about you and in the end of the day you have to decide for yourself what you want to believe in or not believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

Wiki lost credibility for me long ago. It's a playground of nationalists, revivalists, fantasizers, skepticals, believers, deniers.....whatever type you can think of with a lot of free time in their hands. (That said, there is still plenty of good information there but one has to know what to be looking for and how.)

---

Indeed, you have to be careful about using Wikipedia as a source. On most topics it's good as a quick and sloppy reference, but not something for serious debate. It's not usually too hard to notice when articles are biased, though; the bigger worries are ignorance and (occasionally, on infrequently-trafficked pages) hard-to-spot vandalism. Some of the more contentious pages have bazillions of references, too, which is nice.

Not that I have anything at all to do with Wikipedia. ~;)

I only use it for a quick check if I find something I know nothing about; anything serious, and it's time for a visit to the closest good library.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Not that I have anything at all to do with Wikipedia. ~;)

---

Introducing... :san_grin:
.

Pah, 37 edits? Try 1,705. ~;p

.
I have no hurry. ~D
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Indeed, you have to be careful about using Wikipedia as a source. On most topics it's good as a quick and sloppy reference, but not something for serious debate. It's not usually too hard to notice when articles are biased, though; the bigger worries are ignorance and (occasionally, on infrequently-trafficked pages) hard-to-spot vandalism. Some of the more contentious pages have bazillions of references, too, which is nice.

Not that I have anything at all to do with Wikipedia. ~;)

---

I've read an article awhile ago saying Wikipedia will no longer be editable by regular people in the near future (not sure of the date).

Wikipedia is a good starting place, or a place if you just want to get some general information. Also a nice spot for some high school papers. But obviously primary sources and peer-reviewed material is the better place to look. Still, wikipedia is a good source of my information, anyway...:san_laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alman7272

Wikipedia is a good starting place, or a place if you just want to get some general information. Also a nice spot for some high school papers. But obviously primary sources and peer-reviewed material is the better place to look. Still, wikipedia is a good source of my information, anyway...:san_laugh:

---

Whenever I come across anything interesting in Wikipedia, I always try to find another sources that show the same evidence or mention.

As Mouz said it...

Quote:

---

Wiki lost credibility for me long ago. It's a playground of nationalists, revivalists, fantasizers, skepticals, believers, deniers.....whatever type you can think of with a lot of free time in their hands. (That said, there is still plenty of good information there but one has to know what to be looking for and how.)

---

Be careful!!

Another note: Same goes with most websites out there about Byzantine Empire, Macedonia (written by Greeks & Macedonians (meaning the inhabitants of FYROM Macedonia) and Cyprus.
If you wish to come with complaints about EB's historical depiction, then please be sure about the sources you wish to use. Doesn't bode well if you come with evidence you found on a Tripod or Geocities site, with grammatical errors :san_wink:

Wikipedia isn't just history you know, so I wouldn't discredit it as useless right off the bat...it's very likely that the people writing, say, the computer programming articles actually *do* know how to program...etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Whenever I come across anything interesting in Wikipedia, I always try to find another sources that show the same evidence or mention.

As Mouz said it...


Be careful!!

Another note: Same goes with most websites out there about Byzantine Empire, Macedonia (written by Greeks & Macedonians (meaning the inhabitants of FYROM Macedonia) and Cyprus.
If you wish to come with complaints about EB's historical depiction, then please be sure the sources you wish to use. Doesn't bode well if you come with evidence you found on a Tripod or Geocities site, with grammatical errors :san_wink:

---

While I agree with the notion that Wikipedia is weak as a rsource, calling the Bulgarians inhabitants of Skopje "Macedonians" is same as calling the Inhabitants of Japan Irish...
If some people are trying to steal some history in absence of their own that doesnt mean that they have that right.

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

While I agree with the notion that Wikipedia is weak as a rsource, calling the Bulgarians inhabitants of Skopje "Macedonians" is same as calling the Inhabitants of Japan Irish...

---

Worst simile ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

I've read an article awhile ago saying Wikipedia will no longer be editable by regular people in the near future (not sure of the date).

---

What the article actually said is that unregistered users (registration is free and takes about ten seconds if you discount page load time) will no longer be able to create new articles. That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

calling the Bulgarians inhabitants of Skopje "Macedonians" is same as calling the Inhabitants of Japan Irish...
If some people are trying to steal some history in absence of their own that doesnt mean that they have that right.

---

They do have a sovereign right to decide on an internationally-accepted name, and if they happen to want to steal the name of some older country, it's still correct to refer to them by the stolen name. Compare, for instance, to the Holy Roman (read: German) Empire. There are other examples of such name-theft throughout history, I'm sure.

Macedonian adj.

1. Being or pertaining to the Hellenized state of ancient Macedon or its inhabitants.
2. Being or pertaining to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or its inhabitants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

What the article actually said is that unregistered users (registration is free and takes about ten seconds if you discount page load time) will no longer be able to create new articles. That's all.
They do have a sovereign right to decide on an internationally-accepted name, and if they happen to want to steal the name of some older country, it's still correct to refer to them by the stolen name. Compare, for instance, to the Holy Roman (read: German) Empire. There are other examples of such name-theft throughout history, I'm sure.

Macedonian adj.

1. Being or pertaining to the Hellenized state of ancient Macedon or its inhabitants.
2. Being or pertaining to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or its inhabitants.

---

Well I could start a debate of countless thread pages about the fact that Makedonia was Hellenic and wasnt hellenised but its pointless...
Its a name of a part of Hellas that is been called Makedonia since the Antiquity, what right have anyone to name their country after a BORDERING country's province is beyond me...
Its sad to face the truth but the Skopjian state has gone since its creation in a propaganda frenzy claiming decendant from Alexander and Phillip, and dreaming of liberation of the "enslaved", by the evil Greeks, Makedonians:
http://www.macedoniainfo.com/macedonia/
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles.../stefov57.html
these "Makedonian" language that that person claims is 99% Bulgarian language...I didnt know that Alexander spoke Bulgarian...
The answer in a simple FAQ:
http://web.mit.edu/hellenic/www/macedonia.html
also
http://www.macedonia.info/

20 Years ago if one stated that Ancient Makedonians werent Hellenic everybody would laugh, now since the geopolitical scene at the Balkans has changed these claims are taken seriously...
No matter if USA recognise Skopije or no matter how much money George Soros pumps into that state it wont make their claims true or rightful.
I feel that my silence in face of shameless propaganda and the offshots off propaganda would be against my concience...

Hellenes

http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/graphics/shitfan.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/graphics/shitfan.gif

---

thats what hit the fan...
http://www.soros.org/about/bios/a_soros

Hellenes

I don't know. Should I bite, or will the thread be shut down?

.
:dancinglock:
.

Stop bringing modern politics into our forum. BAD forum poster! BAD!!