I've noticed that there are some references to wikipedia in some of the threads. There is an article in USA Today that questions the credibility of some of the articles in this online encyclopedia. Seems that anyone can write just about anything for submission, even things that are false about others. It is definitely not recommended as a scholarly reference. Thought you might want to check out this story:
I read about that, and have wondered the same. The positive side is that one can challenge an entry and submit a correction to it. Nevertheless, wiki is a good site to use in doing research, so long as it isn't considered the "last word" on anything.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Attila the Hun chair of the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies claims to be on the cutting edge of societal evolution. It is, which is why 20 million listen weekly. They catch Rush once in awhile making inaccurate statements, but for speaking 15 hours per week, he's holding up pretty well.
I wonder how many mistakes occur during 15 hours of Air America?
Theoretically, wikipedia is unbiased over the long term, or a composite of whatever levels of truth are floating around these days. Overall, they seem to do fairly well. Truth remains elusive, but the overall quality inches forward. As I am very interested in the truth, I thank you for the input. Great-full (and often full-of-myself)
-------------------- "This is the way of peace: overcome evil with good, and falsehood with truth, and hatred with love...