• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Huffington Post in regards to Judge Jon M. Counsell

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
What better compendium of news of the day? That the Wiki may evolve from day to day does not alter its significance to Judge Counsell's opinion.

If its evolution is of concern, as is common with any and all not-printed resources, then one notes, "URL retrieved XX day, YY month, ZZZZ year. On-line resources and their citation have been incorporated into all style manuals that I've looked at recently.

Believe nothing that your read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
What an utter disgrace! A Judge citing WIKI? How (IMHO) STUPID! There is hardly any corroborating information there to support any facts, WIKI is a conglomeration of compiled info, unsupported by ANY individual who wishes to post, moderated by anyone who refutes it's truth.
If you use WIKI as a credible source of information, you're lazy, uneducated and wrong!
All be it useful as a GUIDE nothing more.
The Judges opinion wrote with the information cited from WIKI should be thrashed, he should be hanging his head in shame, what a dis-service (his references using WIKI) to the 2A.
I wana PUKE anytime I see an individual use WIKI it literally turns my stomach!

Are you kidding? Your just being sarcastic here right?
There are many highly intelligent people in this world that use Wiki as a quick reference guide. Those that use it understand it's purpose. Those that make statements such as yours above are clueless to the usefulness of the Wikipedia.
Your theory, if you don't understand something, then just bash it to pieces.
Sounds like a method of thinking that was used before the Wikipedia was invented. Like thousands of years before.
 

qball54208

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
288
Location
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
Are you kidding? Your just being sarcastic here right?
There are many highly intelligent people in this world that use Wiki as a quick reference guide. Those that use it understand it's purpose. Those that make statements such as yours above are clueless to the usefulness of the Wikipedia.
Your theory, if you don't understand something, then just bash it to pieces.
Sounds like a method of thinking that was used before the Wikipedia was invented. Like thousands of years before.
To answer the first 2 Q's, NO & NO.
As for my theory, it has been my educational experience, any/all of my Educators have emphatically instructed me, "when you write a paper and hand it in, if there be ANY refrence/citation to WIKI, you will be failed"
Just goes to show that the Educational system agrees, and I concur.
Gleason, if you read your comment, you will see the parallel. You in one breath agreed w/me and in another contradicted yourself.
Hint, it is in the 3rd sentence, (now this hint is sarcasm)
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
To answer the first 2 Q's, NO & NO.
As for my theory, it has been my educational experience, any/all of my Educators have emphatically instructed me, "when you write a paper and hand it in, if there be ANY refrence/citation to WIKI, you will be failed"
Just goes to show that the Educational system agrees, and I concur.
Gleason, if you read your comment, you will see the parallel. You in one breath agreed w/me and in another contradicted yourself.
Hint, it is in the 3rd sentence, (now this hint is sarcasm)

I was always told it couldn't be my only source but could be used to support another source.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
I was always told it couldn't be my only source but could be used to support another source.
I think, I hope, that you said it bass-awkwards; might it be better said that a more legitimate source would be needed to support a Wiki?

And note that the Wikipedia requires source citations, footnotes and bibliographies.

It's a bit like instructors being authoritative and not referring to the appropriate style manual for proper use of on-line resources. That leaves the student subject to the likes of the least qualified.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
To answer the first 2 Q's, NO & NO.
As for my theory, it has been my educational experience, any/all of my Educators have emphatically instructed me, "when you write a paper and hand it in, if there be ANY refrence/citation to WIKI, you will be failed"
Just goes to show that the Educational system agrees, and I concur.
Gleason, if you read your comment, you will see the parallel. You in one breath agreed w/me and in another contradicted yourself.
Hint, it is in the 3rd sentence, (now this hint is sarcasm)

Some instructors allow it, some don't. I never rely on it exclusively for any info.
 
Top