Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieDundee
Okay your silly antics are getting silly now. I must conlude Poptech due to your single issue posting, your reliance on dubious sources and absurd arguments and your lack of any knowledge on the subject and seeming inability to read basic English that you are a  . |
So proving you wrong is silly? I see how you can just declare a source "dubious" that must make it easy to win arguments with idiots. My knowledge on the subject is EXTENSIVE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieDundee
And if you could not even read the wiki rules I sure as hell am not going to trawl through your dubious sites to find the ID. You must provide it otherwise you have not even that dubious piece of **** to back you up.
|
I have told you MULTIPLE time that:
I HAVE READ THE WIKI RULES
and you are lying because no where does it answer my questions! You sir continue to lie and cannot prove me wrong. Your continued inability to do such a simple task only demonstrates how you have lost the argument.
1. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? The pages should simply be locked for all eternity in their current perfectly accurate state.
2. Who decides who a "good editor" is? How are their qualifications determined? (anyone with an internet connection can edit any Wikipedia page at will and anyone can create a Wiki account)
3. How do you determine if a page is "good editor" corrected or "bad editor" inaccurate?
4. What is the time frame for a "good editor" to correct a page and how is this time frame determined?
5. If more then one "good editor" wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?
6. If more then one person is "watching" a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?
7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject's Wikipedia page?
8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined?
9. How is a "neutral point of view" determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a "neutral point of view"?
10. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it's level of accuracy?
This is getting embarrassing for you because you cannot prove me wrong. You should be able to destroy and humilliate me if what you state is true but you are either really delusional about Wikipedia or thought you could get away with a lie. Your sir were wrong.