I think our society has arrived at the point where we can just pass an international law stating that if something gets posted to Wikipedia and re-posted anywhere else as a result of that initial Wikipedia entry, it becomes declared "true." It's not historical accuracy that matters, it's just fast access to information. Let the philosophers and other out-of-work liberal debate "truth" as some high-flying concept like "symbolism" or "existence." When you're a real person on the front lines of life, you don't always need "truth," you just need "facts." And facts are facts, whether they're true or not.

The key to getting nonsense into a trial is having yourself declared an "expert." Expert witnesses can rely on otherwise inadmissible sources.

Tweet needed.

People can't handle the truth.

It's a good thing the case wasn't about the scarcity of elephants.

Pocket Ninja: I think our society has arrived at the point where we can just pass an international law stating that if something gets posted to Wikipedia and re-posted anywhere else as a result of that initial Wikipedia entry, it becomes declared "true." It's not historical accuracy that matters, it's just fast access to information. Let the philosophers and other out-of-work liberal debate "truth" as some high-flying concept like "symbolism" or "existence." When you're a real person on the front lines of life, you don't always need "truth," you just need "facts." And facts are facts, whether they're true or not.

Honest-to-Raptor Jesus "facts" I've learned from Wikipedia over the past...well, it may as well have been 24 hours:

-The psychiatrist from Animaniacs was an agent of Zion

-cobalt-60 is the ingredient in Mountain Dew that shrinks your dink

-The Sugarhill Gang had a brief stint in the Ku Klux Klan

-During the latter half of the Korean War, Ben was a fag


How f*cking stupid does a government agency have to be to have cops look to wikipedia to learn about weapons or whatever? Why not learn from a source dedicated to the subject?! That would make so much more sen-

Nevermind, I see it now.

Pocket Ninja: I think our society has arrived at the point where we can just pass an international law stating that if something gets posted to Wikipedia and re-posted anywhere else as a result of that initial Wikipedia entry, it becomes declared "true." It's not historical accuracy that matters, it's just fast access to information. Let the philosophers and other out-of-work liberal debate "truth" as some high-flying concept like "symbolism" or "existence." When you're a real person on the front lines of life, you don't always need "truth," you just need "facts." And facts are facts, whether they're true or not.

Once again, I am reminded of why you are on my favourites list.

skinink: You should see the typical police report. Inaccuracies and they don't write at an adult level. I had a cop write out an incident report on me once. He didn't even get my first name correct even after he had copied all the info from my driver's license. The rest of the report, he basically tried to make it look like I was guilty of whatever it was I was accused of by embellishing the facts.

Why should a cop getting info from wiki be any different for them?

It will undoubtably be better spelled.

But, wiki is the only source I use for research. Well, that and my Magic 8 ball.

They should allow Conservipedia too.

/ at least during sentencing

Pocket Ninja: I think our society has arrived at the point where we can just pass an international law stating that if something gets posted to Wikipedia and re-posted anywhere else as a result of that initial Wikipedia entry, it becomes declared "true." It's not historical accuracy that matters, it's just fast access to information. Let the philosophers and other out-of-work liberal debate "truth" as some high-flying concept like "symbolism" or "existence." When you're a real person on the front lines of life, you don't always need "truth," you just need "facts." And facts are facts, whether they're true or not.

Thank you, Winston Smith.

Stephen Colbert discovered 'Wikiality' and now government agencies are actually using it.

I hope they are aware that the person they are prosecuting may have actually edited the page they are using.

Wiki isn't necessarily a bad starting point, but nowadays, I'd be certain that I got validation from reputable sources.

"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up."

Kinda like the crap that flies for US prosecution cases today eh?

Scroll down to bottom of the page... look at sources. Problem solved. If there's any ambiguity over bias or interpretation, it's most likely in the discussion page.

Srsly, the wikipedia paranoia is like people afraid to buy on ebay in 2001. Just like anything else, it only takes a half a brain to use.

Can't we just make it illegal to post incorrect things to Wikipedia?

chu2dogg: Scroll down to bottom of the page... look at sources. Problem solved. If there's any ambiguity over bias or interpretation, it's most likely in the discussion page.

Srsly, the wikipedia paranoia is like people afraid to buy on ebay in 2001. Just like anything else, it only takes a half a brain to use.

THIS.

/so much this.

/people who know planes will get it

Mongo cut wood: /people who know planes will get it

Oh give us a clue.

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

BluePencilCase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation

Like we're gonna trust Wikipedia.

/I didn't fall of the turnip truck yesterday, ya know.