[mdlug-discuss] Ethanol vs gasoline economy [Was: [mdlug] Automotive technical info ...]

[Robert Adkins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org 
> [mailto:mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Kulkis
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:17 PM
> To: A place for members to discuss anything they want, 
> subjects not appropriate for any of the other lists.
> Subject: Re: [mdlug-discuss] Ethanol vs gasoline economy 
> [Was: [mdlug] Automotive technical info ...]
> 
> Novak, Louis (L.M.) wrote:
> > Aaron wrote:
> >> No different from Clinton's.
> > 
> > You're wrong Aaron.
> > 
> > The Secret Service started using Free Speech Zones, relegating 
> > protesters to a location far removed from the president, for Bush. 
> > See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Zone
> 
> 
> In this case, the people editing the entry are either 
> misinformed or deliberately slanting the truth.
> 

	There are cited references for verification purposes. Wikipedia is
like a research paper, if you don't have a source, the words shouldn't be
strongly trusted.


> Here in Royal Oak, the owner of Noir Leather was harassed 
> into staying in the back of his store when Clinton made a 
> campaign stop on the back of a railroad car.  Noir Leather is 
> hardly a hotbed of anti-Democratic Party activity.
> 

	Find a source to cite and then add both to Wikipedia under that
topic. Help make the topic more accurate.

> > 
> > Bush's Town Hall meetings are renowned for their stricter admission 
> > Requirements.
> 
> Clinton had the same.
> 

	Find a source to cite this from and then add both to Wikipedia. Help
make that topic more accurate.

> Or do you recall the woman who was arrested in the 1990's for 
> merely saying, "you suck!"
> 

	Find a source to cite this from and then add both to Wikipedia. Help
make that topic more accurate.



	See the pattern forming?

	Sure, anyone can edit Wikipedia. However, entries with cited sources
are provided more weight by those who review edits and if the source if
reputable and can be verified, removing the additiona and source becomes far
less likely.

	Anyone who says they have a problem with whether or not everything
is or can ever be accurate within Wikipedia simply doesn't understand how
the system works. It's like in gradeschool when given a tasks to write a
report about topic x. If you wrote an awesome report and failed to put any
bibliographical information into the report, than you would have failed the
task, because nobody would be able to verify where you received the
information in the report.

	That same principle is in practice at Wikipedia. If you can't verify
it, then you shouldn't trust it. If you can verify it from more than one
source, chances are it is more accurate than something without cited
sources.

	-Rob