Star Wars vs Star Trek - the ultimate nerd battle

[Korea]

Star Trek

[Tamas]

Star Trek

[Ed Anger]

[Eddie Teach]

Maybe if that guy wasn't spending all his money on hookers, he could afford a decent computer.

[grumbler]

Maybe if that guy wasn't spending all his money on hookers, he could afford a decent computer.

He doesn't capitalize because he is having sex, and therefore typing one-handed.

[PRC]

rantastic!

Totally Rawsome!

[Sheilbh]

It always amuses me when we have threads about stuff like Star Wars or LOTRO and people start with the whole "that's a giant ripoff of xyz!" arguments.  Virtually everything 'original' that comes out is similar enough to something else that already has been written that someone can credibly make this argument, so I'm never impressed by people thinking they are Sherlock Holmes and 'discovering' these super-secret orgins.

Pointing out sources of stuff isn't just to say it's a whole ripoff or that it's not original, it can just be interesting and it can enhance understanding of both the source and the end product

[The Brain]

When I realized that grumbler's source is his ass it saved me a lot of reading.

[Barrister]

It masqueraded as a credible source, which is an affront to everyone.

Wikipedia has never masqueraded as a credible source.  That's what is so funny about the Barristers of the world; their own source says "Wikipedia is probably the wrong source to cite unless the researcher is a primary school pupil.(1)"  I would disagree about even the primary school pupil bit, but will let that go if Barrister claims that he is a primary school student and wants the exemption.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_an_acceptable_citation - though note that I can cite Wiki in this case, according to Wikipedia: "If the topic under research is Wikipedia itself, then Wikipedia is the preferred source of information."

Grumbler, you really should have included the line right after the one you quoted:

As with all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is rarely appropriate as a citation for academic, business, or journalistic research.

It says it's inappropriate to cite for academic, business or journalism.  It also says it's inappropriate not because of it's open format, but because it's a tertiary source.

And it's certainly right.  If I'm writing a factum for the Court of Appeal I'm certainly not going to use a tertiary source like Wikipedia.  Hell I'm reluctant to use a secondary source such as a thorough legal textbook.  I want to use only primary sources, which in my line of work is caselaw.

However, I put a hell of a lot less work into bullshitting around on languish.  As languish does nto qualify as academia, business or jousnalism, I will continue to cite wikipedia.

[Caliga]

Pointing out sources of stuff isn't just to say it's a whole ripoff or that it's not original, it can just be interesting and it can enhance understanding of both the source and the end product

Yes, true.  But is that the reason anyone would do so on Languish?

[jimmy olsen]

rantastic!

Totally Rawsome!

[Barrister]

rantastic!

Totally Rawsome!

Tim is correct.  It should have been:

Totarry Rawsome!

[jimmy olsen]

rantastic!

Totally Rawsome!

Tim is correct.  It should have been:

Totarry Rawsome!

I'm positive you guys know this, but that wasn't a typo, that was a purposeful mash up the words rant and fantastic.

[Eddie Teach]

It's funnier as an Asian mispronunciation.

[grumbler]

Grumbler, you really should have included the line right after the one you quoted:

As with all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is rarely appropriate as a citation for academic, business, or journalistic research.

No, I shouldn't have, since this adds nothing to the argument.

It says it's inappropriate to cite for academic, business or journalism.  It also says it's inappropriate not because of it's open format, but because it's a tertiary source.

It says that encyclopedias in general are not appropriate citations for those purposes.  It doesn't say that Wiki is suitable as a citation outside those circles.