iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising
| Advertisement |
| Popular WPN Business Resources |
 |
 |
|
|
|
-
Latest Features from Digg and StumbleUpon
Although news outlets continually bring reports about new features on... -
What's Next for Twitter API?
Although Twitter's homepage gets a tremendous amount of traffic, it... -
The Rise of Horizontal Content Sites
Over the last year, the search industry has seen a large rise in...
     |
4 Comments
Wikipedia and the Truth
Wikipedia is at best garbage. The following remark appeared on Wikipedia - "What I'm seeing is a lot of puffed-up titles with little backing or significance, employment at something one step up from a diploma mill, and no sign of real academic notability (or for that matter real-world notability as measured by major media attention). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)" The 'professor' was referring in part to American Military University. AMU has over 30,000 students and is regionally accredited. When does this rubbish stop? I believe this is libel.
Carl
In Wikipedia we cannot trust
But how accurate is the information that Wikipedia supplies? A set of nerds who think that they know everything but where there is no authoritative reference. i.e to a qualified and highly experienced/respected authority (with 50 years on his or her back at least) et al leaves the information totally open to abuse. This is the greatest danger for the world-at-large, accepting what Wikipedia says without question and where if history is rewritten, future generations will just not know right from wrong. A terrible state of affairs for all future generations to come. The same thing will probably equate to the equivalent of Google. I would steer completely away, for the ramification for the future generations are grave to say the very least.
Dr. David Hill Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland Registration no.CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005, in the Canton of Bern www.thewif.org.uk
Wiki-climate
Wikipedia is a public dumping ground for any kind of opinion or position that may be posed to it. It is certainly not an authoritative source of information to understand what is going on with the climate. Wiki also lists something called the "Anthropocene" which is nothing other than a cynical renaming of the Holocene geologic period by the climate-change scare mongers who claim that just about everything of significance that has happened on earth over the past 10,000 years is attributable to humans. It is utter nonsense, yet Wiki lists this fantasy is a truthful facet of science history.
Wikipedia Does Well In Global Warming Searches
Your article outlines why Wikipedia is so dangerous, for if we get the climate change debate wrong by cranks putting up what they wish, we are literally a dead species. Remember in this respect that there are a great number of corporates who wish, due to the bottom-line, to distort information for their sole financial benefit and where I think at times a reasonable number of Wikipedia editors are paid by big business to undertake such distortion.
Indeed, Wikipedia should definitely be made to verify its information as the wrong information will make people really think the wrong things. That in respect of global warming, will end up as the death of humankind. In this respect if a consensus is made on the global basis of what Wikipedia states, we are all in deep trouble.
Indeed, up to 9 months ago we financial gave to Wikipedia, but not anymore, as there are definitely sinister connotations with this system of knowledge. Many that people do not realize presently.
The sooner Jimbo Wales gets his head around this the better for all concerned! Unfortunately for all I do not think he will reading into his background and researching his person.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland
Post new comment