RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Friends.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. What If They're Right? (07:12, 22 Jul 2014)
  2. There seems to be a LOT of people who hate us. (00:46, 22 Jul 2014)
  3. Is there any truth behind the book Grain Brain? (05:00, 21 Jul 2014)
  4. Requesting fiction writing feedback; what would make you "believe in magic?" (02:01, 18 Jul 2014)
  5. Some guy has an opinion about us (00:10, 18 Jul 2014)
  6. Fledgling Rationalist in desperate need of detailed explanations and clarification (preferably from any medical professionals or experts on human biology in the house). (06:33, 12 Jul 2014)
To do list

Contents


[edit] Mandatory Fun

Anybody pick up Weird Al's new album? It might speak to the hearts of people here, as it certainly did to me. "Because I'm Tacky!" Zero (talk - contributions) 12:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at current pictures of him, he should change his first name to "Creepy As Fuck." PsyGremlinPrata! 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
His song "Word Crimes" was very catchy. Never heard the original, but this one's a good grammar lesson. User:PsychoGecko 19:44, 16 July 2014
It's "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke. It's unfortunate he'll be getting money from Weird Al's version - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Fuck, he's onto us! Zero (talk - contributions) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well that's just ridiculous. You wouldn't need a boom mic to fake the moon landing, because in space no one can hear you scam. User:PsychoGecko 23:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Weird Al is merely controlled opposition. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] In case you are wondering

...what brought about the recent wave of vandalism, RW has been the subject of a thread on /pol/. The initial cause of derision were the Rape culture and Feminism articles. Oh, and some of them are wondering "how long it would take to lock the site."--ZooGuard (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, /pol/ is universally loathed by all the other boards on 4chan. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg "Ritsuko, the truth is[...]" "Huh. You liar" 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That thread was a strong reminder that my skin is too thin for the internet. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 15:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the thread ID? Zero (talk - contributions) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Here. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 15:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The thread seems to have devolved into islam bashing. Apart from that, same group of folks saying the same sort of thing. That being said, I really think the Anonymous article is in dire need of help. I've been around the internet a long time and I question the hacktivist collective being just misogynists. Oh it certainly exists within the group, but it doesn't define it. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
While not the most defining part, maybe the most eye-catching part from the perspective of the current RW community. Nullahnung (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Feels to me that all male-heavy internet communities tend towards alarming amount of misogyny these days. Vulpius (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Nah, it's not that. It's that reasonably sane modernist or post modernist attitudes get awful representation through tumblr et al. The impression simplistic people get is that mutual understanding comes from touchiness and rebelliousness, because touchy and rebellious people are noisy. It's the next generation of conservatism beginning to metastasize. Ikanreed (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The great thing about /pol/ is that they're morons. The worst they can do is be wrong repeatedly. Ikanreed (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You know you suck when the rest of 4chan hates you, and you're only kept around so you don't shit up the other boards. --Revolverman (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Imagine being the board that's kept around only so it won't shit up /b/ - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The thread has been deleted. As a guy who has never been to 4CHAN before this, and only knows it by reputation -- what do you have to do to get a thread deleted there? Because blatant racism, misogyny and obvious threats against another website seemed to be okay earlier today. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, they cycle through and expire naturally, so it's entirely dependent how fast the posting cycle of the board in question is - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It's actually really rare for a thread to last more than a few minutes. A few hours, tops. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back? 23:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That must frustrate the hell out of people who research online sociology, etc. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 23:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Nah, we have our ways: http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/32490683/ ·Femilisk 07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There are rules but they're enforced arbitrarily if there happens to be a mod around who gives a shit. Racism & misogyny are ignored; on /b/ & /pol/ they're expected. The thread might have been deleted if it was inciting vandalism here, or it could just have expired. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Mods are pretty much just there to delete illegal content. Although they disappear from the website, most threads are backed up off-site, at least on boards that have opted in for this to happen. You can find this particular thread here: [1] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup 2014

I tried to combine football (i.e., soccer) with basic combinatorics at Essay:The Math of Becoming Second at the Fifa World Cup and the UEFA Euro. I'd appreciate your input. --larron (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Roulette systems

This turned up in one of my inboxes. It seems to rely on a number between 25 and 36 (or 0) not coming up 6 times in a row. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving Moderator 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's risk-free and it always works! With endorsements like that, what could possibly go wrong? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Without spending too much time on it it looks like the martingale is still alive and well in the 21st century.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It's an old system, but when it comes right down to it it's betting a lot to win a little, which is not a good long term strategy. Eventually, you will get those 6 losing numbers in a row, and will lose everything. DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Nah, anybody who actually sticks to this will usually lose everything without seeing six losses in a row. The trick (compared to a Martingale) is that it hides a lot of your losses in shorter runs. Say you lose three in a row, then win. In a Martingale you're back ahead, but with this strategy you've lost $6 overall. You had to bet $2, $4, $8 and $16 (a total of $30 from your capital) and you're only getting back $24 in "winnings" so you're down six dollars even though you feel it's working. Somebody stupid enough to do this will most likely feel they got ripped off somehow, because they kept "winning" yet their capital whittled away until they had to quit. Tialaramex (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Mmmm. Now I got bored and wrote a Monte Carlo simulation. Most losing sessions end with the player having no more than five losses in a row but a significant minority have six losses (typically where the player gets lucky early, then loses badly and is wiped out). In my simulation I assumed that a player who has $7 left and is next supposed to bet $4 on 1-12 and $4 on 13-24 goes home with $7 in their pocket from that session, in practice they'd probably lose it all because they're dumb enough to try a system like this. According to the simulation a player trying for the $1500 per month plan loses on average about $1200 per month, one aiming for $4500 per month loses about $3000 per month. Tialaramex (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Reading through it quickly I thought it was martingale, but I guess there are subtle differences. Either way it has the same flaw. Honestly this system works perfectly... if you have an infinite amount of money. But if you have an infinite amount of money, sitting around roulette tables to win $10 is probably the single biggest possible waste of time imaginable. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This system is astronomically slower than a Martingale for making $10 with an infinite amount of money. The soft losses mean that whereas a Martingale is never more than one lucky round from paying out this gets exponentially worse over time. I simulated a dozen players with infinite wealth trying this system and assumed a spin of roulette takes overall one minute. Most of them walk away with $10 after less than half an hour, and having not dug very deep into their pockets. Some had to spend a few hours, and fish out a few Benjamins to get their $10. But one of them got into deep trouble immediately, and the way this system works they're just more and more unlikely to ever recover over time. Since they have infinite wealth they never have to stop, but they should. After playing roulette continuously for a working lifetime (one million spins) they were down about $135 000 and there had never been more than a few thousand dollars on the table. The house wasn't even sweating, that's not crazy Martingale money that couldn't exist, it's just some schlub losing their life savings very slowly. Tialaramex (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, time to get real work done so I'm stopping the simulator. The loser was simulated for almost 8.5 million spins, at which point they had lost a total of just over a million dollars. Here's an equivalent game which doesn't involve confusing yourself with money, whether infinite or otherwise: Start tossing a coin, when you have tossed at least twice as many heads as tails you win. Like "the system" it's likely but far from certain you'll win quickly. It's theoretically certain you'll win eventually. But I won't wait around to see it happen. Tialaramex (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Roko's basilisk

The crazy is seeping out into the rest of the internet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And doesn't even mention us! - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The conclusion
I worry less about Roko’s Basilisk than about people who believe themselves to have transcended conventional morality. Like his projected Friendly AIs, Yudkowsky is a moral utilitarian: He believes that that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is always ethically justified, even if a few people have to die or suffer along the way. He has explicitly argued that given the choice, it is preferable to torture a single person for 50 years than for a sufficient number of people (to be fair, a lot of people) to get dust specks in their eyes.
which has been my position on the whole completelyLessWrong thing for some time. Cloud Yeller (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I am a little confused. Isn't this the plot to terminator? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, these fools need to watch Back to the Future to understand how time really operates. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously watching science fiction is the best way to learn about science. Obviously. Nullahnung (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Moral utilitarianism is one of those things that triggers a lot of people's "ick" factor. The popular alternative is basically to wish the universe were a nicer place. It ends up reminding me of John Oliver's rant about the American Dream, everybody wants to believe that they're special, that they're going to be a winner and so they believe a system that heavily favours winners is really a system that favours them, even as they lose and lose. Bad news everybody, you are not secretly a magical princess, those are your real parents. Tialaramex (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I presume Roko's Basilisk is the inspiration for Stross' abandoned FTL-without-time-travel premise. He wrote two books before abandoning it as unworkable, but the way he avoided time travel was by having an AI that doesn't want people using time travel in case they go back and prevent it being created. In that setting FTL works, but the AI will stomp on you if you use it to arrive somewhere before you left (which is otherwise pretty easy for "hyperdrives" and other science fictional transport systems). It announces its initial arrival / creation by first scattering all of humanity through some sort of mass teleport, and then firmly declaring "Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone". He wrote himself into a plot corner with the AI though. His current "real" SF series just accepts that the easiest way to avert time travel is to not have FTL at all. Tialaramex (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, if you were going to be judged only for the morality pertaining to some hypothetical AI that would create and torture a copy of you, that would be a good incentive to be an evil asshole. That way, at least you know the copy would probably deserve it. Which, come to think of it, explains why a supposedly benevolent AI would be such an ass: it knows that a better, more powerful, and more benevolent AI is going to come along later and do the same to it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you induce a headache in people who like to overthink things. User:PsychoGecko 10:43, 21 July 2014

I am not going to think about it and let the christian god duke it out with future AI god over who gets to poke me with sharp sticks from beyond the grave AMassiveGay (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is Tialaramex really endorsing utilitarianism? I'm not saying it's core idea is bad, try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The problem is when people take this idea and then try quantifying good. Life is a 'game' where there is a large margin of uncertainty about the score. Uncertainty about the exact results of actions is great too. But more importantly lots of people who have done very good things weren't utilitarians. Utilitarianism is just one tool among many to decide if an action is good or not. --NonPerson (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like a hipster. I thought Roko's Basilisk was stupid before everybody else did...--"Shut up, Brx." 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] So when smoke from near by fires is so thick...

That it still appears to be night time, even at 8 AM, thats bad, right? Because thats what it is here in Prince George. My clothing stinks of a camp fire, and I have only been outside 20 mins, and nowhere near a campfire, I can assure you. --Revolverman (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Some pictures of what I'm talking about --Revolverman (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember friends talking about the fires in the Kelowna/Penticton area some ten years or so ago -- is it as bad as that was? Surprised it's not being featured more prominently on the CBC.... Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 15:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if its as bad, as no part of Prince George is being avacuated, and it seems like its lifted someone (it doesn't look like a nightmare scape anymore) but it still stinks of smoke bad, and is hazy as all get out. --Revolverman (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Daily-Mail-o-Matic

No need to read the real thing now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this in our Daily Mail article already? Vulpius (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Research fail on my part. :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of laissez-faire

I'm looking to add a better one to the article and the best I can up with is "unregulated business". Any suggestions? — Melab (Talk) 01:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The one on the article seems appropriate to me. so why change it again? K61824"6+18=24" 02:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Israeli military activity in Palestine

I don't exactly get it. What is making whatever Israel has been doing to Palestine any more morally defensible than say, whatever Syria has been doing? People supporting peace or even simply condemning violence somehow get labelled as anti-semitic. With that kind of attitude/atmosphere it is difficult not to have conspiracy theories about the Jews and the media. K61824Ahh! my eyes!! 06:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus among those who actually study these things is that this ground offensive is a bad idea, so I'd suggest you stop right there with that last sentence.
The unyielding division between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian supporters in the public debate is just a reflection of what's happening on the ground; it's politically unpalatable for anyone on either side to admit these four conclusions all at once: a) That the status quo in Gaza/the West Bank (and lack of a two-state solution) has failed miserably; b) Israel is killing a disproportionate number of people than rocket attacks can do from the opposite (though instigating) side; c) Hamas really is an organization of whackjobs that is not acting in Palestinians' best interests; and d) There cannot be further Middle Eastern resentment towards a Jewish state. What has changed since 2008 in these respects? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Proof that God really exists: lets put several different groups of people who all follow different religious ideologies into one area then tell them that I specifically give them exclusive claim to it. But seriously, the argument that being against the Israeli ground assault therefore makes you anti-Semitic is as fallacious as saying that criticizing the religion of Islam, in any shape or form, is Islamophobic. It simply does not follow. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Middle ground is an (Choose!: Israeli/Anti-Israeli) conspirancy theory!!!. If you don't think (Israel and DA JUICE/Hamas and MOOSELEEMS) is literally UNADULTERATED, PURE EVIL you are (ISLAMOPHOBIC CHRISTOFASCIST/ANTI-SEMITIC NAZI)!!1!!!111! <- Every online argument I've had on these matters. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin' 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. MESSIAH OF DOOM Deserved doom shall be unto youDolan.png 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, if people stopped shoehorning ethnicity into this debate, it would be so much less tedious.
Thing is, both sides have been godawful. Hamas is a bunch of anti-Semitic, terrorist nutjobs, and Israel's offense is a terrible, terrible idea. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Because I'm a terrorist! 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the Palestinians are Semitic. But I think I lost that case of pedantry many decades ago.Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.

Moderator 18:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

/but Khant, they are the wrong kind of Semetic. Just cause you look incredibly similar and have similar (and even moreso, if you go by the stories) origins is irrelevant. --Miekal 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
So people on TV generally have not studied that, including the newscasters and correspondents? Wtf.gif Or is it just Sinclair's law in action? K61824Who is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 14:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
They're all in AIPAC's pockets anyway.--Madman (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Stop. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back? 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia Air tragedy -- is the Russionalwiki guy still around?

Given that the Ukrainian rebels are fucking with the plane wrecjage and keeping inspectors from seeing the site, while the Russian media spins the story totally away from how "the West" is framing it, it would be cool if someone who reads Russian can maybe do something about the Soviet Russian conspiracy-theorizing for us.... — Unsigned, by: Father Vivian O'Blivion / talk / contribs 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Russianalwiki guy" is User:Bertran. I understand Russian to a degree, but I don't follow Russian sources.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
(Imagine the headlines) August 1, 2014: "Skeptic website combating MH17 conspiracy theories gets banned from Russia" Osaka Sun (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The tyranny of the cathedral

http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/74.14.73.163 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This post is the definition of the Plen-T-Plaint. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't, they also have support of reason magazine— Unsigned, by: 74.14.73.163 / talk / contribs
Our plans are going swimmingly. We at the Cathedral shall soon gather 'round the Round Table (made of the finest black marble, of course, and in a dimly-lit greenish room) and proceed to discuss Phase 37 of the plan that shall put the Antichrist in his rightful place. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg RationalWiki, did you kill Rita? 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I figured you had bigger plans for Obama. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
He's kind of like the Aquaman of the Cathedral. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 01:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And here I was thinking more along the lines of Heinz Doofenshmirtz. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That would make Obama's opponents a child with a triangle-shaped head and a walking platypus, which I would strongly doubt. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am thoroughly confused. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Obama's wife faces off against platypus, photographic evidence. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] New Weird Al Yankovic video satirises conspiracy theories

I'm new to RW and have only posted a few articles. I did think of RW when I saw this video though! It's also created somewhat of a shitstorm in the comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0TEJMJOhk Origin (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted about Mandatory Fun above, but yes, the comments? Fucking gold. Zero (talk - contributions) 05:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed you did, sorry must have missed that. Origin (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Would RationalWiki be a good reference for a school project?

I'm working on a school project, and the best source of information was RationalWiki. Would it be an OK reference? Should I reference the pages references?— Unsigned, by: 203.104.11.4 / talk / contribs

Wikis are rarely a good reference for academic papers, but RationalWiki covers some topics that receive little attention elsewhere and at times can be the only source of collected info on a topic. It is cited from time to time by other reputable places on the internet such as Snopes, but again we aren't talking about a high scholarly level here. You should check with you teacher as to what kind of standard they are hoping for. --Marlow (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No. The best RW can do is point to valid references in the real world. If we cite something from somewhere, chase that source down and use it. If we don't, poke around until you find that information in a proper source. (I'm assuming you're in some sort of post-secondary/college/university setting. If you're in American high school, not bringing a gun to class and proving basic literacy should be enough to get you an A, and anything beyond that means you're working too hard.) Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Rationalwiki is the ISIS of the wiki world -- convert from Christianity or suffer the consequences. Hardly rational, at all. nobsOne who's been there. 00:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Damn right! Kill the fidel! Ajkgordon (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If you have no other sources currently, the best thing to do is follow the references attached to the article in question, that is, if they are academic papers and not web articles. Even so, I'd use a website like jstor or your library over it if possible. If it isn't work that is being marked then you might be able to get away with it though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess it depends on your grade, and the nature of the project- like, if it's exploring different perspectives or whatever, then I guess it could be okay, but if it's like hardcore science or whatever, follow the references. Also, what articles were you thinking of using? Some are better than others. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM But flies will lay their eggsDolan.png 05:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Never cite a wiki in a research paper. (Unless it's about wikis.) What are you researching that is so obscure that you can't find anything outside of RW? Random YouTube cranks? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I second what Nebuchadnezzar said. It would help to know what your topic is. "School project" is vague. For instance, say you are writing about a health topic, let's say, "arthritis" for example, or similar, in that case, the best advice would be to go to a source that is generally highly regarded and accepted by the community of professionals that have to do with the topic. Using the "arthritis" example, you would check, perhaps: www.arthritis.org and www.webmd.com/arthritis/ and www.mayoclinic.org/diseases, and perhaps a government site such as http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/arthritis.html. These would most likely have helpful, credible, proven information on your topic. Now on the other hand, if your "school project" is more along the lines of an 'exploration' of a subject, or a theory, musings along the lines of a what if this or that, and reasons why you believe a certain way on a subject that is debatable, then Rationalwiki might have some alternate viewpoints or ideas that you could include that could spark a discussion, that other wikis haven't covered. I agree with others here who have already said that in general, wiki's (even Wikipedia) are not good references to cite, as the information changes, and is written and re-written by anyone, with no requirement that the person be an expert in a particular field, and while many times they may have good, credible info, it's not guaranteed. Refugeetalk page 05:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Aye, that's essentially what I meant- if it's talking about people's different opinions on a debated subject, it could possibly slide- and, again, it's different if you're in seventh grade compared to university. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Push the envelope, watch it bendDolan.png 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No. We're biased. We're biased in a way I personally think is truth oriented(pro-skepticism, pro universal rights, anti-traditionalism), but it's still a bias, and academic integrity requires you to avoid(or at least honestly distance yourself from) biased sources. Ikanreed (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support