Speakers...HTF do they work yo?

[friedkarma]

howstuffworks.com

[IIJoshIII]

Went there. Was okay but talked about components mostly.

[Blasterpez]

Originally Posted by Spartan1127

-2000. Wikipedia is so unreliable.

True dat spartan!

Any website anyone has access to, too say anything they want about anything can't be used as a reliable source (not saying it is all crap, but if you want to find out how something works because you don't know, why go to a site that is full of possible BS, and you wouldn't know any better), especially for a school paper. How hard would his teach/prof laugh when he sees wikipedia as a cited source in his bibliography?

(i saw charles' post after the fact, so i can say ditto, too)

[bevo1981]

can someone explain how this magic wand thingy works? it's infuriating to me because i don't think it's voodoo or the work of Satan, but i just can't figure it out. i point it at my TV, press a button, and then the channel changes. how does it do that?! what is this strange contraption?

[rabbitc]

Blasterpez, do some reading on Chaos Theory and you'll understand.
Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensive and accurate resources available in the world.

[Blasterpez]

Originally Posted by rabbitc

Blasterpez, do some reading on Chaos Theory and you'll understand.
Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensive and accurate resources available in the world.

Can i read it about it on wikipedia? whenever i hear choas theory i think of that dude in the jurrasic park books.


i don't usually ask for proof, but do you have a link or something that can back up your statement? Or is your statement based on that theory, and if i read about it, i will answer my own question?

[FriskyDingo]

why is everyone bashing on wiki its a damn fine site,is it because it can be edited by the general public or whatever? because if thats why how would that be any different than any of you guys telling him how a loudspeaker works?

[rabbitc]

Blaster - I have neither the time nor the concern to respond to your need for proof. If you want proof - research it your damned self rather than rely on others to answer your questions for you (which seems to contradict the whole point of asking for proof in the first place)

Use it or don't use it - It doesn't matter to me either way.

Good luck finding a better, more reliable reference that:
-is owned by a charity as supposed to a profiteering media corp
-requires you to cite references for validity
-ensures more than one point of view is incorporated into the article
-has the distribution and contribution to the level and scale internationally that Wikipedia does


Let me know when you find it.

[Pepper Jack]

- and allows anyone to edit the pages and give you wrong info

i put my name on a page ones in a list of famous people and it was there for ove 5 years

i also read that every single one of no doubts albums was called "Bull****"

so yeah...if you use wiki as a source of reliable information then you're an idiot, i guess that explains why you use it

[rabbitc]

which page of 'famous people' was that, PJ - 'known celebrities that have had gerbils removed from their rectums?'

Again - all I will say is 'Chaos Theory'
If you don't understand then online references are probably lost on you anyway.

btw - as far as gibberish appearing on wikipedia, you might want to look up the meaning of the phrase 'Citation needed'

[rabbitc]

testing

[bevo1981]

when did it get all serious in here? boobies

[Blasterpez]

Originally Posted by rabbitc

Blaster - I have neither the time nor the concern to respond to your need for proof. If you want proof - research it your damned self rather than rely on others to answer your questions for you (which seems to contradict the whole point of asking for proof in the first place)

Use it or don't use it - It doesn't matter to me either way.

Good luck finding a better, more reliable reference that:
-is owned by a charity as supposed to a profiteering media corp
-requires you to cite references for validity
-ensures more than one point of view is incorporated into the article
-has the distribution and contribution to the level and scale internationally that Wikipedia does


Let me know when you find it.

generally, when you assert a statement as fact (wikipedia is comprehensive and accurate), when clearly it is opinion, you should back up that statement with some type of source, other then your ass and some condescending remarks...If you want to be taken seriously that is.

yes, you did mention chaos THEORY. theories are nice, but they are a long shot from actual science or actual facts, hence the word THEORY.

i'm not bashing wikipedia. i would use it for researching stuff of personal interest, i would never use it for an actual research paper for a college class.

[Spartan1127]

I was doing a big essay on Darfur, he said that we had to use footnotes for our info and he banned the class from citing wikipedia as a source.

[rabbitc]

you should back up that statement with some type of source, other then your ass and some condescending remarks...If you want to be taken seriously that is.

Well...to be honest, I don't actually care if I'm taken seriously or not - but I'll humour you on this occassion.

when clearly it is opinion

A wiki article with cited, verifiable references hardly constitutes 'opinion.' I certainly agree that wiki articles contain opinion, but then - show me a reference that does not. I have read many articles from World Book, Grolier and even the mighty Encyclopedia Britannica that were rife with opinion - and in those cases, all of the authors (for a given collection) worked for the same company and were under control of a common editor. In fact, the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica received specific criticism for being prejudiced, biased and downright misleading depending on the topic.

i would never use it for an actual research paper for a college class.

Why not? If anything, Wikipedia serves as an excellent portal to identify cited sources for information. Why spend hours sifting the 'Net' for information when Wikipedia can point you in the right direction instantly? It may not be the be-all, end-all - but it's a bloody good start.

->Blaster, can you explain to me what Chaos theory is all about and why it might be relevant to the accuracy of Wikipedia?

Nevermind whether you agree with it or not - simply show me that you UNDERSTAND what I was referring to and then I will be quite happy to debate the subject with you. Look at this as a chance to engage in some independant research.

Here's a hint:



This is a fractal-equation generated image. Fractals are thought to mimic many of the natural (chaotic) processes we witness in the real world. This image is entirely mathematically generated with seemingly random outcomes and yet it resembles a very well-known shape, doesn't it?

Blaster, what does this image mean to you and why could it be relevant when discussing the underlying accuracy of something like Wikipedia? (remember, you don't have to agree - just understand)

banned the class from citing wikipedia as a source.

That is because Wikipedia is an reference portal, not a reference source on its own. If you cite the validated references that are listed at the bottom of the wiki article in your bibliography, that is completely sufficient and your prof will have no issue. (you should always check the link to make sure it is valid) Having said that, if there aren't any validated references cited, then you cannot use the content. Also, if you are lifting a quote word-for-word, be sure that you are using the cited source and not the paraphrase in the wiki article.

In the case where a textbook is cited (as supposed to a website or online document) it is your reponsibility to find the passage in the actual textbook the old fashioned way: getting your butt to the library and actually finding the book in question. While this might sound arduous, you have to bear in mind the time that Wikipedia would have saved you having to search for such a reference in the first place.

[bevo1981]

thanks rabbitc, for demonstrating why there should be a restriction on the size of any post. this bored the hell out of me 10 seconds into it. you have ruined my day.

[Spartan1127]

The war has begun.

[axeman2008]

Originally Posted by bevo1981

thanks rabbitc, for demonstrating why there should be a restriction on the size of any post. this bored the hell out of me 10 seconds into it. you have ruined my day.

SHUP he's proving a point.