Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I chuckle everytime someone posts any kind of wiki as source to anything.

Polvilhovoador wrote:I chuckle everytime someone posts any kind of wiki as source to anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasil

Here it is stated that Brasil is the largest country in South America. It is the world's fifth largest country, both by geographical area and by population with over 190 million people. Also, it is the only Portuguese-speaking country in the Americas and the largest lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) country in the world.

So, acording to you nothing of this is real and your country, in fact, is nothing special at all... You just owned yourself

His point went over your head. Wikipedia is not a valid source, he's not talking about how accurate the information on the page is. It's like the middle-man, or hearing something from someone who heard it from someone else.

That's rights. So none of this regarding to Brasil is true since Wikipedia is "not valid source".
And it is also stated that "The U.S. economy is the world's largest national economy". And we all know that everything is made in China and that the biggest fuel reserves on a planet has Russia. You just proven my point.

When discussing more abstract facts and claims (things other than easily verifiable knowledge like population, land size, so on...), wikipedia is not to be used, period. What wikipedia does do very well is form a great starting area to garner some basic background knowledge on a particularly topic, then going to an academic source and researching further.

In university, you will get laughed out of the institution if you present a paper with wikipedia listed even once as a source. Besides, as someone pointed previously, google scholar is simple and easy to use and will give you at least some degree of reliable sources, though places like JStor and university libraries will always be the best.

So in closing, if someone ever asks you for a source for a claim, never cite wikipedia, find something more credible.

By the same logic Bible is also not valid source since it has been rewritten gazillion times by various men forming their own view of Jesus and his sacrifice.
And still people are taking sources from Bible without a word, why should Wikipedia be any different when she is more reliable ( you can even check for all of that data if it's true )?
I don't know why you people think that Wiki sucks?

Be fair to Coa, at least he has stopped using id4chan as a source...

purplefood wrote:Be fair to Coa, at least he has stopped using id4chan as a source...

id4chan speak truth about everything I read there, only in more funnier way.
Like I said, when I read there about Matt Ward I immediately download all codexes he wrote to read them personally.
When I saw what men have done, I salute id4chan for being honest in a modern way...

Brother Coa wrote:By the same logic Bible is also not valid source since it has been rewritten gazillion times by various men forming their own view of Jesus and his sacrifice.
And still people are taking sources from Bible without a word, why should Wikipedia be any different when she is more reliable ( you can even check for all of that data if it's true )?
I don't know why you people think that Wiki sucks?

What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...

Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.

The Bible, really?

Let's not bring religion into this debate. Can only end badly.

Brother Coa wrote:

purplefood wrote:Be fair to Coa, at least he has stopped using id4chan as a source...

id4chan speak truth about everything I read there, only in more funnier way.
Like I said, when I read there about Matt Ward I immediately download all codexes he wrote to read them personally.
When I saw what men have done, I salute id4chan for being honest in a modern way...

id4chan corrupt the facts and present it in a different light. They create motivations from nothing.
They are funny but very bad for actual sources...

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Let's not bring religion into this debate. Can only end badly.

This is true, never ends well. Unless It's about the Imperial Creed

Blacksails wrote:
What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...

Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.

The Bible, really?

Isn't it obvious? People believe in that what is written in a bible. And there is no prof that Jesus ever existed beside stories about him from his followers. Even so, people don't judge the sources of the text, if they are true or not. And they judge Wikipedia who has valid sources for all of it's claims.

And hard to call the world's biggest encyclopedia non academic stuff... And does Wikipedia give links and book pages where you can find the actual source? I call that valid source of information, no matter if it's not academic book ( imagine if Wikipedia is a book... ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:
id4chan corrupt the facts and present it in a different light. They create motivations from nothing.
They are funny but very bad for actual sources...

True to some point, but that point was proven right at the end. Matt Ward did wrote Draigo fluff, the Necron-Blood Angel Alliance Fluff and he rewrote old fluff where Ultramarines were slaughtered to new fluff were they kick butt...

But I will stop here, I won't provoke thread shutdown...
And since this is MY thread, all info from Wikipedia is considered valid.

Brother Coa wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...

Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.

The Bible, really?

Isn't it obvious? People believe in that what is written in a bible. And there is no prof that Jesus ever existed beside stories about him from his followers. Even so, people don't judge the sources of the text, if they are true or not. And they judge Wikipedia who has valid sources for all of it's claims.

And hard to call the world's biggest encyclopedia non academic stuff... And does Wikipedia give links and book pages where you can find the actual source? I call that valid source of information, no matter if it's not academic book ( imagine if Wikipedia is a book... ).

I don't even know if you're being serious anymore.

People believe in the Bible as a source of faith, not as a source to derive facts that are unrelated to the Bible. Might I remind you we're discussing wikipedia as a source for a variety of facts, which the Bible does not fall under.

Wikipedia lists some sources, but those sources are not necessarily correct. During my time at university, I regularly found errors on Wikipedia pages for historical and political articles, which you claim are factual and valid. The academic community at large heavily disagrees.

The point is, if you're going to try and say something like 'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII', wikipedia doesn't cut it and you will be made the laughing stock of, well, everyone.

But by all means, keep trying to debate this.

Canadian 5th wrote:

If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.

Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.

Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?

As for Nukes, the Imperium can hardly go around nuking everything. They do in some cases, Krieg being one of them, but it quickly becomes apparent that such methods make the planet unlivable.

A point for Air support, in the Tyranid codex the battle for Tyran (which could only have had one outcome) went downhill when the Imperial Air support was torn down by immense swarms of gargoyles. Up until then the IG regiments had been holding the hordes back well enough. And in the battle for Maccrage the ground battle had been going well, until genestealers infiltrated the planet's starport and killed most of the defenders and pilots. With that, Calgar's PDF couldn't move or re-deploy as rapidly as the Ultramarines and Calgar was forced to take a stand.

So as we see, air power is incredibly effective.

Of course it's effective, air superiority is a huge factor in modern warfare. But you can't win wars on airpower alone.

It's cute when you say it like that. Becuase there's a neat assumption in there that seems to ignore exactly how huge an undertaking that would be, or how you would go about feeding or fuelling such an expedition. Sure, once you were finished people could live on that moon indeifinitely (the Imperium does this) but it's never going to be as easy as you've put it.

They didn't need to do it all at once, they should have already had it done. Once you can move between systems and spaceflight is cheap, then staying on a planet is really not a bright plan. Once you can build things in space setting foot on a world again is stupid. These facts are all easy enough to prove.

I fail to see how a space station is ever going to produce more than a Forge World.

I agree that Naval superiority is a huge factor in the Imperium, but a planet yields so much more in the way of resources, as well as population than a couple of asteroids ever could.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Coa: Just becuase Wikipedia is correct, and it isn't alot of the time, does not make it an academic source. Academic sources are peer-reviewed and much more reliable.

It's fine to use Wikipedia to demonstrate very basic things like the population of China or Australia, but for subjects that have even the slightest area of dispute or controversy, Wikipedia doesn't come even close to making the cut.

Blacksails wrote:
I don't even know if you're being serious anymore.

People believe in the Bible as a source of faith, not as a source to derive facts that are unrelated to the Bible. Might I remind you we're discussing wikipedia as a source for a variety of facts, which the Bible does not fall under.

Wikipedia lists some sources, but those sources are not necessarily correct. During my time at university, I regularly found errors on Wikipedia pages for historical and political articles, which you claim are factual and valid. The academic community at large heavily disagrees.

The point is, if you're going to try and say something like 'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII', wikipedia doesn't cut it and you will be made the laughing stock of, well, everyone.

But by all means, keep trying to debate this.

I just represent them as equal representation of information, but you are to blind to see that so we will move along...

And I never said: "'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII'" nor does it say anywhere on Wiki. I don't know where did you imagine this. And in universities here Wiki is praised as the most reliable source for information, people use the sources from it here to do their final exams for university and for doctor's diploma's. So you are going to insult my country now?

And debate is over since I said that every information from Wiki is valid in this thread.

Brother Coa wrote:
I just represent them as equal representation of information, but you are to blind to see that so we will move along...

And I never said: "'Japan was almost done making a nuclear weapon by the end of WWII'" nor does it say anywhere on Wiki. I don't know where did you imagine this. And in universities here Wiki is praised as the most reliable source for information, people use the sources from it here to do their final exams for university and for doctor's diploma's. So you are going to insult my country now?

For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.

And debate is over since I said that every information from Wiki is valid in this thread.

BIWINNING!

Brother Coa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
There was no military need to invade Japan. The allies could simply have ignored the Japanese mainland and let people starve to death, because they had already sunk practically all of the Japanese navy and merchant fleet.
That is what is called a strategy -- what this thread is supposedly about.

We all know that, but back then they really wanted to attack Japan mainland.
2 reasons: Soviets and British were pushing for invasion and Americans wanted a revenge for Pearl Harbor.
If your theory was correct they wouldn't even use A-bomb, they would just let them starve.
But there was a problem - Japanese were also on a way making their own A-bomb so time was of the essence for Allies.

This is where you spoke about the Japanese developing a nuclear weapon.

Seriously? Wikipedia is a valid and credible source for universities where you're from? I don't even know what to say to that...

My time in university would have been infinitely easier if I could have just cited a few pages of wikipedia and skipped over the dozens of hours of research for every paper I had to write...

You clearly won't see the light that many others here see as well, so I'll leave you be in your thread where any random fact is perfectly acceptable and valid with no backing at all. Have fun.

Brother Coa wrote: And in universities here Wiki is praised as the most reliable source for information, people use the sources from it here to do their final exams for university and for doctor's diploma's. So you are going to insult my country now?

I was typing a long text trying to explain why wikipedia shouldn't be considered a reliable source but then I read this and realized we are all being trolled.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.

I am not joking about that, people here use information from Wikipedia to graduate on university ( it is far easier to read several pages on Wikipedia then 1000 in one book ).
I myself go trough middle school and university projects using only info from Wiki, and I got good grades to. And it's not Serbia, but whole peninsula is using Wiki for university work.
To us, only North Americans and West and North Europeans are not trustworthy toward Wiki. It's like not trusting your own encyclopedias and books...

Brother Coa wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.

I am not joking about that, people here use information from Wikipedia to graduate on university ( it is far easier to read several pages on Wikipedia then 1000 in one book ).
I myself go trough middle school and university projects using only info from Wiki, and I got good grades to. And it's not Serbia, but whole peninsula is using Wiki for university work.
To us, only North Americans and West and North Europeans are not trustworthy toward Wiki. It's like not trusting your own encyclopedias and books...

Encyclopedias and books are reviewed countless times by scholars and editors beforehand wikipedia is not

I think I just realized I've been trolled...I need a drink...

Blacksails wrote:

This is where you spoke about the Japanese developing a nuclear weapon.

I didn't say: "They HAD atom bomb" I say " They were RESEARCHING it". Read more carefully...

Seriously? Wikipedia is a valid and credible source for universities where you're from? I don't even know what to say to that...

My time in university would have been infinitely easier if I could have just cited a few pages of wikipedia and skipped over the dozens of hours of research for every paper I had to write...

You clearly won't see the light that many others here see as well, so I'll leave you be in your thread where any random fact is perfectly acceptable and valid with no backing at all. Have fun.

Light? You sound like arrogant American... You have difference of opinion toward me, that's ok. But in this thread there is no valid fact on Wiki and has no backing since Warhammer is not even real. We only compare military strategies of Imperial Guard and giving example to improve some things. Again, you are not reading the thread and it's OP question ( we have gone a little from OP, but blaim air power and KillKrazy for that... ). And most comon rule, if you don't like what is written here... don't read...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nicholas wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
For a second I felt such despair for your country. But then I realised you were joking, and probably have been all along.

I am not joking about that, people here use information from Wikipedia to graduate on university ( it is far easier to read several pages on Wikipedia then 1000 in one book ).
I myself go trough middle school and university projects using only info from Wiki, and I got good grades to. And it's not Serbia, but whole peninsula is using Wiki for university work.
To us, only North Americans and West and North Europeans are not trustworthy toward Wiki. It's like not trusting your own encyclopedias and books...

Encyclopedias and books are reviewed countless times by scholars and editors beforehand wikipedia is not

They have whole teams of people checking the statement's. You think someone would take the info from it without checking the original source?

Two words, Brother Coa.

Peer Reviewed.

Wikipedia is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:I think I just realized I've been trolled...I need a drink...

*pours Blacksails a Whisky*

Or were you after something stronger?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Two words, Brother Coa.

Peer Reviewed.

Wikipedia is not.

Point taken... Nevertheless Wiki is quite reliable site, at least for me...

Emperors Faithful wrote:Two words, Brother Coa.

Peer Reviewed.

Wikipedia is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:I think I just realized I've been trolled...I need a drink...

*pours Blacksails a Whisky*

Or were you after something stronger?

I've got some 94% Quebec Alcool ready to go, you're more than welcome to partake as well.

Brother Coa wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Two words, Brother Coa.

Peer Reviewed.

Wikipedia is not.

Point taken... Nevertheless Wiki is quite reliable site, at least for me...

Depends on your definition of reliable. In terms of stating basic, well-known facts? Sure.

But supporting an argument? No.

EDIT: However, I can never be fethed to really dig into sources unless I'm using it for university. The standards for arguments on the internet are much lower than a University assignment, so I'll probably take it on face value. Really, if you've provided Wiki as a source then Blacksails should provide an Academic Source which contradicts it, rather than just say Wiki doesn't count.

Blacksails wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Two words, Brother Coa.

Peer Reviewed.

Wikipedia is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:I think I just realized I've been trolled...I need a drink...

*pours Blacksails a Whisky*

Or were you after something stronger?

I've got some 94% Quebec Alcool ready to go, you're more than welcome to partake as well.

Sweet Terra, Why?!

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Sweet Terra, Why?!

Why is not the question you should be asking, my friend. Why not, is the question you should be asking.

Best part is, it's perfectly legal and sold in convenience stores in Quebec. Kept a bottle for random occasions. Welcome to Canada eh?

Blacksails wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Sweet Terra, Why?!

Why is not the question you should be asking, my friend. Why not, is the question you should be asking.

Best part is, it's perfectly legal and sold in convenience stores in Quebec. Kept a bottle for random occasions. Welcome to Canada eh?

Indeed the country of opportunity....

So, now when we stop arguing ( thank the Emperor... ) what is your opinion on OP?

considering that wiki will let anyone make edits to the pages it is kinda hard to take it as fact.