On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:08:46 -0400, Duncan J Macdonald
<macdonalddj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <1192028705.756751.31980@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>mjdrabik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>> "reductio ad Wikipedium"
>>
>> a logical fallacy which assumes the form of "Wikipedia (or other wiki
>> reference) states X; therefore X must be false";
>
>You realize that the ultra-gameability of Wikipedia makes it
>unuseable as a primary source, yes?
Wikipedia isn't nearly gameable enough to disqualify it as a source in
casual usenet-debate.
>> Given Wikipedia's (undeserved) poor reputation for accuracy, this
>> logical fallacy is often mistaken for a valid argument. Also known as
>> reference snobbery.
>
>Their reputation for inaccuracy is not undeserved.
Yes, it is. The 'pedia's reputation for inaccuracy tends to be
exaggerated.
>> Just because it appears on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not true.
>
>The converse is also true: Just because it appears on Wikipedia does
>not mean that it is true.
No ****, sherlock. He never said that.
Jasper
|
