(February 8, 2017 at 1:54 pm)Violet Wrote:(February 8, 2017 at 12:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Wait, why didn't Wikipedia cite Violet? Wikipedia is fake news.
I certainly wouldn't pin my PHD on it, SteelCurtain. I remember back when teachers were utterly unwilling to allow wikipedia as a source.
I daresay that is still the correct course of action. As a source amalgamation it is fine, but too many citations lie behind paywalls. Academic articles doing that is pretty absurd to me.
I remember when foolish people tried to cite Wikipedia as a source, instead of the list of academic sources neatly compiled for you at the bottom of the page. I also remember when GeoCities was a thing. The internet has changed.
Downplaying the validity of the content within Wikipedia because at one time it was a new thing and more unreliable is a sure sign that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and are grasping at straws to maintain your position.
But I'll let you to it.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
