Why you shouldn't argue people on internet?
- Thread starter Tulag
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Wait! There's nails in this thread? Nails should be kept away from people who are arguing. Also, hitting on the head could be viewed as a hostile act.#6 Adorno hit the nail on the head.
Last edited:
Only thing that Adorno did was quoting one of the parts of my thread and the part I told him to get proffessional help. So he basically implies that I violated my own rule number 5. If you're genuinely aggreing with that, no problem for me.#6 Adorno hit the nail on the head
Number 5:
"5- Some people are having tough situations in real life and looking for a place to puke their hatred and that is generally the internet. So they become the internet mobs or bullies."
Community is very lucky to have a guy like you, I'm saying that in a very friendly way. Otherwise how would we amuse ourselves, without your extreme quality humor?
Last edited:
There's no point in arguing on the internet! Now quick, let's all argue about it.
By the way, Wikipedia is awesome and a lot of the articles written in there are actually written by scholars. On the other hand you can buy some pretty crappy books written by people that don't know what they are talking about, so... It's not quite as simple as you put it.
That's right, I am arguing about it. Wanna argue about it?
Just kidding, just kidding.
Man 2020 was fun and 2021 is looking to get even better.
By the way, Wikipedia is awesome and a lot of the articles written in there are actually written by scholars. On the other hand you can buy some pretty crappy books written by people that don't know what they are talking about, so... It's not quite as simple as you put it.
That's right, I am arguing about it. Wanna argue about it?
Just kidding, just kidding.
Man 2020 was fun and 2021 is looking to get even better.
Nobody is rejecting that Wikipedia consists quality content and knowledge in it but it may be biased in some matters because it's a free-encyclopedia and everyone can write what they want and supporting it with controversial proofs. As I mentioned below "prestigious proffessors" not "Some pretty crappy books written by people that don't know what they are talking about"
And how do you decide who is a prestigious professor? Also, what you say about Wikipedia's articles applies to books too.
Only a book person would know that. His work, his articles, his successes etc.
I'll give you an example of this "prestigious proffessor" I highly speak of: Edward Said, Jean Paul Roux, Judith Herrin
Only the books that consist controversial info that will support their controversial articles.
You must be realted to several prestigious proffessors.
I hope this was a joke, a cold one.
Nega-Brutus
Everyone just kinda getting along, bullying the new guy on TW hits all the places of my brain that do nostalgia. 
Last edited:
Right but the thing is, what you are talking about is more about the difference between good work and bad work. There's going to be good and bad articles on Wikipedia, just like there's going to be good and bad books. The perception that "anyone can write anything" on Wikipedia is common, but that is actually not as true as you'd think these days. Sure, you can go vandalize an article, but it is going to be restored pretty quickly. The system that they have in place is pretty robust. Books on the other hand are for the most part not peer reviewed, and these days it's easy to self publish.
With this I am not saying that Wikipedia is the gospel and books are trash. Just, don't be that quick to dismiss Wikipedia as a source because it's actually a pretty good one. And I will let you in on a secret: I know for a fact that academics use Wikipedia all the time
.Final note, controversial books are not necessarily bad. They just need to be supported by a more robust body of evidence. Or, as one of my favorite quotes from Isaac Asimov goes:
Exactly, there will be good and bad works but one can be smart enough to choose the good work.
Well, people like you and me (ordinary people) can interact with this encyclopedia hence it can be biased that's what I'm trying to tell and you're wrong because biased information still stands there and hasn't been interacted since they're written.
There will be always exceptions but majority of academics or lecturers encouraging people to make their own researches and gather seperate evidences under one article, not read it from Wikipedia and use it as a source.I know for a fact that academics use Wikipedia all the time
Last edited:
Academics are ordinary people too, and have biases just like everyone else. And I would be curious to see what Wikipedia articles you are referring to. I don't doubt that there are some bad Wikipedia articles out there, but again there are also a lot of bad books. Distinguishing between a good and a bad book is exactly the same as distinguishing between a good and a bad Wikipedia article. Also, in this day and age most academics would actually cringe hard at the term "encouraging people to do their own research", given what that has come to mean with the explosion of conspiracy theories, but I am hoping that is not what you meant. Research is done in a lab, not on Google.
Nega-Brutus
Reading Wikipedia is doing research. Whether or not you're going to use Wikipedia depends on the quality of research you want to do. Meaning, it depends on you and how in-depth you care about understanding something. No one reads academic papers for every single point they argue. Professors or PhD students look up referenced concepts they're not familiar with on Wikipedia or an article for the purposes of understanding a paper or something. Otherwise, you're reading a paper before you can read a paper, before you can read a paper, before you can read a paper, etc.
I- I'm a legal scientist plz.
I- I'm a legal scientist plz.
Well ok, I am in engineering myself so I suppose it's different in other fields. Still, I imagine you use online libraries rather than Facebook and cousinbob.com, which is what most of those people refer to when they say "research".
Fun fact, cousinbob.com does not actually exist. I of course had to try it after typing that out.
Nega-Brutus
Yeah, this is a miscommunication between sciences. Cringe puritans don't understand that different sciences require different methodologies because they're obviously doing different things.
Jk, philosophers are losers.
Jk, philosophers are losers.
And I'm telling you that prestigious and distinguished proffessors I'm talking about gone beyond "being ordinary" and became "The Elites". The elites will provide us the correct information since they're not obsessed with manipulating people. They're all about being bridge between the facts and the people.
That is another time's discussion. I will open a thread about it. Tomorrow or later on.
You got me there but don't expect me to trust Wikipedia while it consists tons of biased information as well as the quality information. One can't use Wikipedia as a proofin every occasion. Especially on controversial matters because it may consist fake information.
"Would" ? Academics are your sock puppets now?
I involved mostly in historical debates so I'm talking that kind of research. Not kind of research made in labs
I'm sure several people toyed with the idea of patiently explaining to him what he does wrong, but he would just argue with you oblivious to the irony of the thread title, instead of recognizing and assimilating instant wisdom. Helping someone who lacks self-awareness is a thankless task.Everyone just kinda getting along, bullying the new guy on TW hits all the places of my brain that do nostalgia.
