• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Starchild Skull is real according to Wikipedia

Reading the wiki discussion it shows the whole problem. IMHO some thing are very obvious non neutral, stuff up NPOV. Anyway it has been reverted I think as now reading the article (very short) it says it is a human skull.
 
That's wild. The revision notice for Pye's (or whoever) rant said Sept. 10th. and I just happened... wait a minute, I checked out the page because Pye was on Coast to Coast AM a short time earlier. Someone else must have been listening, checked out the page, saw the rant and made the revision. Too funny.

Here's direct link to the history page showing the pre-edited content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starchild_skull&diff=398944061&oldid=398941807
 
Yes, well, if you just believe what happens to be at the moment on Wikipedia... let's just say that among the things I personally learned from it, and never would have guessed otherwise, include that:

- didgeridoos are cloned in test tubes

- iron is extracted from monkeys

- the bridges of ancient Rome were manufactured in Japan

Etc.
 
Wikipedia has questionable information?! SRSLY?!

I would only use Wiki for pop culture questions, and then take it with a dose of salt...If you want to know, "What was the name of that show about the moon being knocked out of orbit?" Wiki might be useful; or even, "What was the name of Santana's 2nd album?" But for issues of fact, there are many better resources.

I assume that if someone is quoting Wikipedia as their source, they're not rigorous in their research and/or thinking. Part of my education as a returned student in middle age has been that a lot of the kids (ie, 20-somethings) think that If It's Online, It Has To Be True. I am raising my kids to know better, but it's clearly a problem. No wonder infomercials work!
 
Wikipedia represents a starting point for research, but not the end of it. At the very least, one should visit the citations in any of the articles. (THAT is why Wiki doesn't allow "original research", btw!) And one has to assess the quality of those.

Further research can be launched from even that point, and is encouraged.

Wikipedia does not really arm people with knowledge, so much as it arms them with access to knowledge.
 
Wikipedia Front Page said:
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Click to expand...

Highlighted the relevant part...

Wikipedia is a great place to start a search, but because of the 'anyone' bit, not a good place to use exclusively for a search.
 
Wowbagger said:
Wikipedia represents a starting point for research, but not the end of it. At the very least, one should visit the citations in any of the articles. (THAT is why Wiki doesn't allow "original research", btw!) And one has to assess the quality of those.

Further research can be launched from even that point, and is encouraged.

Wikipedia does not really arm people with knowledge, so much as it arms them with access to knowledge.
Click to expand...

+1 for this approach. Wiki is great for the references it provides and the summation. I inevitably follow the links to find the rest of the story. Sometimes it's spot-on, other times there are variances.
 
Miss_Kitt said:
Wikipedia has questionable information?! SRSLY?!

I would only use Wiki for pop culture questions, and then take it with a dose of salt...If you want to know, "What was the name of that show about the moon being knocked out of orbit?" Wiki might be useful; or even, "What was the name of Santana's 2nd album?" But for issues of fact, there are many better resources.

I assume that if someone is quoting Wikipedia as their source, they're not rigorous in their research and/or thinking. Part of my education as a returned student in middle age has been that a lot of the kids (ie, 20-somethings) think that If It's Online, It Has To Be True. I am raising my kids to know better, but it's clearly a problem. No wonder infomercials work!
Click to expand...

I sometimes link people to Wikipedia because it offers a nice overview of many subjects in easy-to-read laymen's terms. Sometimes more authoritative sources expect the reader to be well-versed in the subject and don't encourage the layperson to learn more about it. Wikipedia has the advantage of being phrased in simple terms that anyone can understand as well as referenced to more authoritative sources.

Perhaps you should re-think your assumptions about people who quote Wikipedia. There are good uses for it as long as everyone understands that anyone can edit and/or sabotage it at will.
 
The thread started out about the Star Skull and got derailed and hijacked to be about the veracity of Wiki. No one has addressed the rebuttal made by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=398941807.

It would be nice to get back on track and address the points one by one with a rejoinder statement based on scientific facts accompanied by charts, graphs, data, links, etc.
 
jakesteele said:
The thread started out about the Star Skull and got derailed and hijacked to be about the veracity of Wiki. No one has addressed the rebuttal made by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=398941807.

It would be nice to get back on track and address the points one by one with a rejoinder statement based on scientific facts accompanied by charts, graphs, data, links, etc.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I wish people reading threads would actually read the content of the OP and first few posts rather than just jump on a bandwagon.
 
jakesteele said:
The thread started out about the Star Skull and got derailed and hijacked to be about the veracity of Wiki. No one has addressed the rebuttal made by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=398941807.

It would be nice to get back on track and address the points one by one with a rejoinder statement based on scientific facts accompanied by charts, graphs, data, links, etc.
Click to expand...

Your link just goes to the Wikipedia home page.

What was the rebuttal?
 
I like how the discussion page calls the New England Skeptical Society "A dead guy, 3 Novellas, and two gimps"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom