MagicShroom said:
cleverlymadeup said:
wikipedia has a fun law of averages thing going. the fact that everyone can edit it actually helps make it more accurate. i do find it funny when people try and discredit your argument cause "you used wikipedia" it shows how little they actually know about the process
there was a philosopher that said that lower class people shouldn't vote cause they were stupid and didn't have the ability to rule properly. so he proposed a test to show that he was right. he had them guess the weight of a cow. now no one single guess was correct, however if you took the average of all the guesses they got it right.
the fact that the not one person was correct but the whole group was correct
Yeah I also like the fact that after a trip through wikipedia, dipshits suddenly turn into e-geniuses (what the fuck happened to hard work and actually studying?)...
Seriously I only use it for recreational, I refuse to use it in debate, and actual research due to not being a fully reliable source.
actually you're wrong on both your points and missed my point totally and i'll explain it in basic english
it IS a reliable source of information because of the fact that everyone can edit and change it.
they've actually done several blind tests against the encyclopedia britantica and to everyone's surprise wikipedia actually came out on top in a couple of the tests and was more accurate than britanica is.
also that little parable doesn't come from wikipedia, it actually comes from nova science now
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0301/04.html
or here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-FonWBEb0o