Sarah Palin, Paul Revere and Wikipedia.

[Ideologue]

I never got the Wikipedia hate.  You got the sources at the bottom and you read 'em to determine if the article is valid or not.  It's a good summary for many, many, many subjects.  It's a little (well, it is) shallow for subjects in wich you are studying at university, but for every other subjects, it's a perfect way of learning, by reading the articles and the sources, as long as you keep your critical thinking, of course.  They make mistakes, but so do other encyclopedia.

Yep.

Also, the breadth of scope is really a lot of fun.  They have an article about facials.  Take that, Brittanica.

[Kleves]

They have an article about facials. 

Including hilarious pictures, even. "An unsmiling woman receiving a facial." 

[Razgovory]

lol, Wikipedia users.

And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.

I never used Wikipedia as a source.

Take the sources Wikipedia uses, and claim them for your sources.

I have often found that the sources used in Wikipedia don't actually say what the person sourcing claims they say.

[grumbler]

I never got the Wikipedia hate.  You got the sources at the bottom and you read 'em to determine if the article is valid or not.  It's a good summary for many, many, many subjects.  It's a little (well, it is) shallow for subjects in wich you are studying at university, but for every other subjects, it's a perfect way of learning, by reading the articles and the sources, as long as you keep your critical thinking, of course.  They make mistakes, but so do other encyclopedia.

I never got it, either.  Wikipedia is unreliable and unauthoritative, but has links to more authoritative sources and the average article reliability is high enough that it serves for general knowledge's sake.  You just have to know what you are dealing with, like any other source.

[Razgovory]

I never got the Wikipedia hate.  You got the sources at the bottom and you read 'em to determine if the article is valid or not.  It's a good summary for many, many, many subjects.  It's a little (well, it is) shallow for subjects in wich you are studying at university, but for every other subjects, it's a perfect way of learning, by reading the articles and the sources, as long as you keep your critical thinking, of course.  They make mistakes, but so do other encyclopedia.

I never got it, either.  Wikipedia is unreliable and unauthoritative, but has links to more authoritative sources and the average article reliability is high enough that it serves for general knowledge's sake.  You just have to know what you are dealing with, like any other source.

It's gotten better in the last few years, but you still see lots of unsourced statements, pages scarred by edit wars, lists of references in popular culture, vandalism, and outright kookery.

[DGuller]

They have an article about facials. 

Including hilarious pictures, even. "An unsmiling woman receiving a facial." 

Misleading advertising. 

[Neil]

In the most ironic thing ever I spend alot of time correcting grammar errors in obscure wikipedia articles.

That is terribly ironic, Mr. Keske.

[Kleves]

Misleading advertising. 

Disambiguation. 

[The Minsky Moment]

What did Palin say?

[Berkut]

What did Palin say?

"He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

[The Minsky Moment]

Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story?  Why is this particular comment drawing attention?

[Berkut]

Sarah is the gift that keeps on giving.

The attempt to somehow make her comments actually make sense is a lot more amusing than the comments themselves, IMO.

[MadImmortalMan]

Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story?  Why is this particular comment drawing attention?

The reporters following her around are extra super mad at her for treating them like shit. Here's an idea. Stop following her.

[Scipio]

She kind of got lucky and semi-accurately stated some facts; the rush to interpret her as a raving imbecile is far more illustrative of the media's thirst for some sort of non-Weiner news, than of anything else.

How is this woman important, exactly?

[Ed Anger]

Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story?  Why is this particular comment drawing attention?

The reporters following her around are extra super mad at her for treating them like shit. Here's an idea. Stop following her.

The reporters bitching about the bus is awesome. Palin might as well paint a trollface on the side of the bus.