Wikipedia != Authoritative?

Frozen North writes "Recently, this article in the Syracuse Post-Standard caused a stir by dismissing Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and even suggesting that it was a little deceptive by looking too much like a "real" encyclopedia. Techdirt suggested an experiment: insert bogus information into Wikipedia, and see how long it takes for the mistake to be removed. Well, I did that experiment, and the results weren't good: five errors inserted over five days, all of which lasted until I removed them myself at the end of the experiment."

Comments

I added an entry about myself

[Anonymous Coward]

And they removed it. Tarts.

What part of it wasn't true? I hate Wiki-willy-wavers. Go and get a real job.

Your sig

[penguinoid]

The meaning of life is left as an exercise to the reader.

Which is quickly found by doing a google search.

Re:Your sig

[Destoo]

My sister was in Benin a few weeks ago and she learned stuff about their shamanistic rituals and "levels".
(she looked at another canadian friend there and said the words "D&D" with a smile.

She asked a bunch of questions, and wanted to know if there was a maximum level they could get.

When she told me that the maximum level they could be in their system is 41, I was almost crying.
So 42 IS the answer.

Re:Your sig

[sketerpot]

Regarding your sig, I think it would be nice if we could all agree on our definitions of atheism and agnosticism. I could fall into either category depending on which of the various definitions are used, but I prefer to call myself an atheist in its weak (and literal) definition: one who lacks a belief in a god or gods. Confusion in the definitions of those words is a pet peeve of mine.

Re:Your sig

[arose]

Atheism: An explicit lack of belief in the existence of any god or supernatural power.

Re:people arent skeptical enough

[jgardn]

How many Americans still believe between the fictional connection between Saddam and 9/11?

We all agree that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?

Assuming that we are, all I have to prove is a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and then a connection between Saddam and 9/11 based on those two facts.

From http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921- 3401r.htm:

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Not enough for you? Read http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp, which was cited by Dick Cheney himself as the best article to detail the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Note also that the 9/11 commission found that there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq and Al Quaeda cooperated in the 9/11 event. However, there was evidence of Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperating.

Take the direct words of CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression."

Take also the words of John Kerry, who said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." Some of those terrorists are obviously members of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi is perhaps the best example of an Al Qaeda senior operative operating in Iraq before, and now after, the war.

Also remember the Prague meeting, where Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, or so it was claimed. While the administration doesn't claim to have evidence of these claims, the Czech government won't abandon their position on this issue.

Now, I've proven with evidence that there is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. We take it as an agreed fact that Al Qaeda is directly responsible for 9/11. Now the question remains: Can we connect these two facts to attribute some blame of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein?

The one side says that yes, we can. The reasoning is that since Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they share the blame for what Al Qaeda has done. The other side says that no we can't because even thought Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they did so without knowing of 9/11.

I'll leave that one up to people's judgment. However, you cannot say that it absolutely is not true that Saddam and 9/11 is not linked. Nor can I say that it absolutely is true that they are linked. I can only say that if you believe that by supporting Al Qaeda, Saddam shares some of the blame of the things Al Qaeda has done, then Saddam shares some of the responsibility of 9/11.