Comments on: Wiki Screwup A Shock For Sinbad

Actor-Comic Says He's Fine; Wikipedia Error Said He Was Dead

[random_radar]

Wikipedia is the equivalent of the National Enquirer that anyone can write an article for.

[agnim]

"Reading text from a book of course is old fashioned and maybe antiquated, but it still works. Information that can be edited by anyone with a computer is something you shouldn't depend on.

Posted by mitch0927 at 09:45 AM : Mar 16, 2007"

Whom do you think write your books?
SOMEONE(S) WITH A COMPUTER! LOL

Not everyone can just edit Wiki; and please note how relatively quickly the alert goes out and posts are challenged when considered wrong?

Wiki is a living encyclopedia.
It is not for the witless who don't know how to validate information or how to take information with at grain of salt until corroborated by other means, especially when the information is to be taken seriously.

No intelligent person is going to rely on ANY one source when the information is very important.
As with scientific knowledge, one will check and check again for authenticity.

[agnim]

"Wiki's religion expert is evidently a 24-year-old college drop-out.

Posted by cgesualdo at 09:10 AM : Mar 16, 2007"

If Wiki's religion expert is your criterion for judging the encyclopedia, then Wiki passes with even more flying colors: No one can go wrong writing about religion.
Religion is all MADE UP IDEOLOGY OF THE IMAGINATION! LOL

[mitch0927]

I would say most of the posts in Wiki are know it all who think since they have a computer, they are the fore-most authority on everything. Reading text from a book of course is old fashioned and maybe antiquated, but it still works. Information that can be edited by anyone with a computer is something you shouldn't depend on. Something that was writen by "experts" and can reference it to other materials is something I would trust. Kids these days have no clue on what real research is all about.

[cgesualdo]

Wikipedia is more accurate than "real" encyclopedias? *Please* Where on earth is the data you base that opinion on? Encyclopedia articles are written by experts and often signed. Their credentials are checked. Wiki's religion expert is evidently a 24-year-old college drop-out.

[agnim]

Posted by obiquital at 09:00 AM : Mar 16, 2007

A man after mi own heart.

Wiki is not for witless. LOL

[agnim]

Wiki is a great site; but recommended only for the more alert of mind who know how to validate or when to take as valid conclusions written anywhere.

Errors happen in any encyclopedia; although one wonders if this so-called 'error' wasn't a stunt, publicity or otherwise.

And Sinbad 'Mark Twain' is too cool to take any 'exaggerations about his death' seriously. LOL

[obiquital]

Wikipedia is more accurate than the "real" encyclopedias. As long as you aren't an idiot and actually check the references, you'll be fine.

[ajaxrose1]

I agree. Anyone looking for accurate information about anything should steer clear of Wiki. It's an interesting concept, but it's not a reliable source. I'm glad Sinbad is okay, though. He's a comedian, so I'm thinking he could get some rather funny material out of this deal!

[mitch0927]

Go ahead tuckerndfw, and stay out of touch. Its comments like yours that people are sick of reading. As with Wiki, that proves my point in saying people can learn a lot more by opening up a real Encyclopedia Book (remember those)? Depending on Wiki to be acurate and true is a waste of time.