message for hayseeds
oh, that glorious wikipedia — quoted authoritatively by mushbrains over the world.
again i attempt to correct the stupid: if the wikipedia article you’re quoting as an authority is properly written, it will list its sources, and those sources (preferably stripped to their origin), at best, are what you should quote. original research is, with only extremely rare exception, prohibited by wikipedia policy.
me, writing the author of a post lew rockwell pointed to as a supposed refutation of helicopter bernanke:
"Even wikipedia".
absent referral to the direct source(s) that any properly written wikipedia article must have for any assertion (thereby bypassing wikipedia, except perhaps to say it's where you found your source), "wikipedia" is essentially a fancy way of saying "someone no one's ever heard of", while pretending it bears great weight.
then, in perspective, "Even [someone you've never heard of]" says blah blah? wow!
it marks you.
March 8th, 2010 at 00:47
you: “ha ha, you references Wikipedia, loser!”
robert:”Yeah, I know, so I put some other references”
you: “(dammit I got nothin) BUT YOU REFERENCED WIKIPEDIA, I STILL GOT YOU AND I’M AWESOME”
robert:”?”
charley:1 robert:0
March 8th, 2010 at 19:34
when you’ve a refutation of something i wrote, publish it.
March 17th, 2010 at 08:52
I thought I did, and you were thoughtful enough to republish it here. Thanks!
March 18th, 2010 at 20:16
what was refuted? explain in detail, quoting me.
April 5th, 2010 at 16:12
Jeebus, Charley!
You said he used a sourceless quote.
He thanked you for pointing that out, agreed, and provided some sources.
That was a direct response from the guy, and you then challenged the degree of his directness! Classic mark of a troll!
Now you’re challenging the directness of my responses, demanding details and quotes.
Wow, you’re trolling your own blog!
April 5th, 2010 at 16:22
what was refuted? explain in detail, quoting me.
ah, the T word. it’s nearly guaranteed that any modern use of it is shameless evasion of the supposed real subject. not merely coincidentally, it’s the common hurler of “troll” who most executes the behavior he supposedly excoriates. your turn is not exceptional.
again: what was refuted? explain in detail, quoting me.
i do not write “quoting me” on a whim. good reason for it, as you’ve demonstrated in every yap “on the subject”. if in the next reply you’ve no material refutation based on quoting something i’ve written on the instant topic, you will be ignored.
April 7th, 2010 at 14:23
Sigh.
you: “absent referral to the direct source(s) … while pretending it bears great weight.”
him: “Thanks for your insight re wikipedia versus an original source … which is why in Update 1 and Update 2 I linked to the Milwaukee Sentinel and NYT as sources”
you: “regardless, they do not remove the ludicrous quoting of wikipedia as a source”
I choose to refute statement, “regardless…”: if a sourceless reference can be supported by sourced references, which fulfill your source requirement, then the sourceless reference no longer violates your requirement, thereby “…removing the ludicrous quoting…”.
He addressed you directly and graciously. The only irrational aspect of the entire exchange is your assertion that “…they do not remove the ludicrous quoting…” without exactly specifying how that could be accomplished.
But of course doing so would have been constructive, and you weren’t really shooting for that anyway.
April 7th, 2010 at 14:48
I choose to refute statement, “regardless…”: if a sourceless reference can be supported by sourced references, which fulfill your source requirement, then the sourceless reference no longer violates your requirement, thereby “…removing the ludicrous quoting…”.
yes, all along you’ve got it into your head that i give a fuck when people merely quote wikipedia. i do not. in this regard i noted only (key word for morons) that referring to a mention in wikipedia as authoritative or noteworthy because it was mentioned in wikipedia is bullshit (e.g., “Even wikipedia has part of the story”). this is inarguable truth, yet your panties are tangled chasing straw men (e.g., “ha ha, you references Wikipedia, loser!”).
you have no point. you cannot through blather about peripheral topics remove the OP’s error. neither you nor anyone else can make inclusion in wikipedia noteworthy simply because the information is corroborated elsewhere. you don’t understand. fine. why waste your time in ignorance? why muddle along ignoring the importance of the word “even”, which changes entirely the sentence it occupies — the sentence to which i responded?
don’t answer. you’re an intractable posturing hack.
April 7th, 2010 at 19:05
Oh, I see now! You’re not bent out of shape because his Wikipedia quote lacked sources. You’re bent out of shape because he quoted Wikipedia to make his topic seem noteworthy.
That’s why I didn’t get your point: he didn’t quote Wikipedia to give value to his topic, he quoted Wikipedia as an example of the ubiquity of his topic. Isn’t this okay? You did say original research is generally prohibited, which would make stuff in Wikipedia common knowledge.
Seems like the OP didn’t understand you either.
April 7th, 2010 at 20:16
That’s why I didn’t get your point: he didn’t quote Wikipedia to give value to his topic, he quoted Wikipedia as an example of the ubiquity of his topic. Isn’t this okay?
it’s okay after your stupid ass explains how evidence that a single stranger (perhaps the OP for all you know) wrote something on a public internet page demonstrates ubiquity.
work that out, paramecium-brain. will only take… forever. yap yap yap it. call someone a troll. you’ll get by.
April 9th, 2010 at 14:29
“it’s okay after your stupid ass explains how evidence that a single stranger (perhaps the OP for all you know) wrote something on a public internet page demonstrates ubiquity.”
Okay, I submit “original research is, with only extremely rare exception, prohibited by wikipedia policy.”. (I did say this in my previous post)
But, of course, it doesn’t demonstrate ubiquity enough for you. Which of course is an exercise in fallacious argument.
And all this of course glosses over the fact that your original complaint was over an imagined sentiment, which it appears you admit.
April 9th, 2010 at 15:23
laughing at you.
April 12th, 2010 at 15:48
Then there’s hope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelotology