sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Just wanted to be clear. I watch Rachel Madcow for comedy. She and Chris Matthews are funnier than anyone on TV. No one on any news channel even comes close to being as blatantly biased as MSNBC. That's not even up for debate. If you can't see that, you're as blind and partisan as the people you accuse. I've never claimed MSNBC wasn't biased...but there's more ways to get your news than Fox or MSNBC. And, to address an earlier users post, it's OK to use Wikipedia as a reliable source as long as the article is well researched and claims jibe with the sources linked at the end of the article. I know folks can edit that as they please, but the source text will stay the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 And, to address an earlier users post, it's OK to use Wikipedia as a reliable source as long as the article is well researched and claims jibe with the sources linked at the end of the article. I know folks can edit that as they please, but the source text will stay the same. That was me, and wiki is generally reliable but I would never claim it as a credible source. Use the sources the wiki page uses. Dont get me wrong, I use wiki as the starting point of any research I do but it isint totally reliable. And I never quote anything from wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 For academic research the sources are the way to go. But for an informal message board, the links are on the article if anyone wants to verify its content...so I just use the Wikipedia link. Besides, if an article uses say, 40 sources, anyone wanting to read more about a given subject has 39 other links besides the one they check for accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironguru 11 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) What it tells me is that the layoffs weren't necessary to begin with. All they were was a ploy to help the GOP to scare up votes...and a little corporate greed to boot. I'd love to tear into you on this but my old gray haired granny told me years ago to never argue with an idiot they'll just bring you down to there level then beat you with there experience. Edited December 1, 2012 by gridironguru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 For academic research the sources are the way to go. But for an informal message board, the links are on the article if anyone wants to verify its content...so I just use the Wikipedia link. Besides, if an article uses say, 40 sources, anyone wanting to read more about a given subject has 39 other links besides the one they check for accuracy. True, but if you use wiki people will say "see, thats bullcrap he used wikipedia". For me its easier to just avoid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.