In article <qclug35rge39l1lt4uenpnf02rav00o72e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
jasper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> 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.
It can be a jumping off point. If it is the only source quoted,
however, the argument it sup****ts drops rapidly in beliveability.
> >> 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.
Possibly.
> >> 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.
No, no. There's****, right over there! Honest!
--
Duncan J Macdonald
duncan.macdonald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
