Posted: Mar 13, 2020 8:32 pm
theropod_V_2.0 wrote:I did not say, write or imply that wiki is incorrect or wrong. What I wrote was that wiki is not “reputable and consistent”. It isn’t, and ANYONE that would like to debate this is welcome to try. I do not appreciate my position being distorted by anyone. If one is going to cite my statements do so accurately. My post in relation to this thread is not cryptic nor obscure. Neither is it hard to find. I also hold that there is a big difference between wrong, and my descriptors. Wiki may well be correct about one topic or another at any given point in time, but there is no way to know whether a citation will be correct from one moment to the next. This, by definition, is not consistent nor reputable.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/relig ... l#p2736987
Now, perhaps a retraction is in order.
My point stands. At what point in time does a citation hold validity? Before, during or after an edit?
RS
If I didn't accurately render your position, then please excuse me. I was just trying to head off Nevets' strawman on which this entire thread is based wherein he claims people have been criticizing the value of Wikipedia rather than the manner in which he specifically uses it. As you criticized Wikipedia in some terms, I just wanted to make sure to simplify and separate your particular criticism from all the other criticism specifically of Nevets' usage of Wikipedia.