Wikipedia's GW Agenda
April 18th 2008 23:02
You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written by ordinary people. This in itself makes it prone to error. Even if it were 99% correct it would still be prone to error. Lets face it, Wikipedia is probably 80% accurate. Either way, this is not about how often right Wikipedia is. It's about whether it is on an agenda and will CENSOR any views that go against it.
This should be research you do on your own. Wikipedia seems to write itself when it comes to global warming. An editor seems to be the only source of knowledge when it comes to global warming. They speak for climatologists and even the person they are talking about can't correct them.
If all this from the article is true, Wikipedia is what I always thought. A reference of baseless knowledge. This isn't to say that most entries aren't accurate. If you think about it anytime you research something and Google it, Wikipedia is usually the first one. This doesn't mean it is totally accurate but rather more people use Wikipedia to do research. I always make sure it is pretty accurate before using it. I also go to other sites to find different views and see a common connection.
This should be research you do on your own. Wikipedia seems to write itself when it comes to global warming. An editor seems to be the only source of knowledge when it comes to global warming. They speak for climatologists and even the person they are talking about can't correct them.
If all this from the article is true, Wikipedia is what I always thought. A reference of baseless knowledge. This isn't to say that most entries aren't accurate. If you think about it anytime you research something and Google it, Wikipedia is usually the first one. This doesn't mean it is totally accurate but rather more people use Wikipedia to do research. I always make sure it is pretty accurate before using it. I also go to other sites to find different views and see a common connection.
| 28 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
