Remember how I said you shouldn't source Wikipedia? Well here's another reason. Fox News likes to edit it.
Ha!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
About a week ago, the World Meteorological Organization put out a statement to correct the erroneous claims in the media that global warming had stopped (emphasis theirs):
GENEVA, 4 April 2008 (WMO) - The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is…
The Journal's James Hookway informs us that a trial court judge in Manila, Judge Floro, has an interesting set of consultants: three elves, only visible to the judge himself! Belief in this trio has caused the country's supreme court to intervene and fire the judge.
...Mr. Floro, 54 years old, has…
I know, I know. This isn't exactly surprising. You might have heard that Bill O'Reilly claimed recently that the FBI had visited him to tell him he was on an Al Qaeda hit list. I laughed when I heard it, knowing it was probably a bunch of crap. Turns out it was, according to Radar Online.
But the…
One of the most frustrating things about the Standard and Poor's (S&P) U.S. debt downgrade is that S&P is part of the problem, as I've described before. They really aren't studious evaluators of evidence, untouched by the profit motive or ideology. They are venal hacks, as Matt Stoller…
Apparently www.geeksaresexy.net must be down, or my DNS server is being mean again.
Heh. I'm working to clean Wikipedia up. =)
Know what? Even with Fox News spinning Wikipedia as fast and as hard as they can, it's still oodles more accurate than the average creationist site.
And the Vatican, and the CIA.... oops.
You have to love it when they get caught doing silly things:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
Most of the edits detected by the scanner correct spelling mistakes or factual inaccuracies in profiles.
However, others have been used to remove potentially damaging material or to deface sites.
When they know there's a problem, Wikipedia administrators work fast. This identified address has already been banned for three months for the POV-pushing edits. Of course, this still shows how Wikipedia isn't always going to be reliable. Personally, I prefer to use it as a starting point for learning about a subject, then going to the sources it references for more accurate information and any citations I need. Oh, and it's also fun to screw with people who base an argument off a single sentence in Wikipedia by changing it.
Weel, it does help when one of the Wikipedia administrators reads this blog =)