Main Menu

27 Responses to Wikipedia article on Obama Conspiracy Theories

  1. avatar
    Scott Brown June 7, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

    I wouldn’t research how to clip my nails on Wikipedia. It is NOT an acceptable reference for any college/business level research; therefore, it is worthless in my opinion.

  2. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 8, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    Seeing as how you’re wrong about just about everything you say, I don’t think you really have any right to call Wikipedia “worthless.”

  3. avatar
    misha June 8, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    Scott Brown: I wouldn’t research how to clip my nails on Wikipedia. It is NOT an acceptable reference for any college/business level research; therefore, it is worthless in my opinion.

    Your opinion in general is worthless, as is your spelling and syntax, along with your alleged logic.

  4. avatar
    richCares June 8, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    “Your opinion in general is worthless, as is your spelling and syntax, along with your alleged logic”.
    .
    Yes, but he got himself into the Guinness World Records as the only person that couldn’t get a passport with the same type of COLB as Obama’s. Quite an achievement, plus his pants are on fire.

  5. avatar
    misha June 8, 2010 at 1:00 am #

    richCares: Yes, but he got himself into the Guinness World Records as the only person that couldn’t get a passport with the same type of COLB as Obama’s. Quite an achievement, plus his pants are on fire.

    Touché.

  6. avatar
    Lupin June 8, 2010 at 3:04 am #

    Scott Brown: I wouldn’t research how to clip my nails on Wikipedia.

    Somehow I didn’t portray you as the type of person who clips his/her nails (or cut his/her hair either).

  7. avatar
    Arthur June 8, 2010 at 3:27 am #

    While Wikipedia has been viewed with suspicion as a scholarly source, that attitude is changing:

    http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/

    As an academic researcher in the humanities, I use Wikipedia as a generally reliable source to find information that answers factual questions, (e.g., What year was Arthur Miller’s play “All My Sons” first produced on Broadway?), but I use JSTOR, Google Books and published sources to find material that answers or supports interpretative or evaluative questions, (e.g. Is “All My Sons” an effective modern tragedy?). My colleagues in business and the sciences do the same thing.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    Lupin: Somehow I didn’t portray [Scott Brown] as the type of person who clips his/her nails (or cut his/her hair either).

    Somehow the image of the Train Man from the movie, The Matrix Revolutions, comes to mind.

  9. avatar
    Lupin June 8, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Somehow the image of the Train Man from the movie, The Matrix Revolutions, comes to mind.

    A very apt parallel, yes. Minus the French accent, I suppose.

  10. avatar
    misha June 8, 2010 at 8:44 am #

    Lupin: A very apt parallel, yes. Minus the French accent, I suppose.

    Mais oui.

  11. avatar
    JoZeppy June 8, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    Scott Brown: I wouldn’t research how to clip my nails on Wikipedia. It is NOT an acceptable reference for any college/business level research; therefore, it is worthless in my opinion.

    Judging by some of the things you have posted, I didn’t think you did any research on much of anything.

  12. avatar
    bob June 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    Arthur: While Wikipedia has been viewed with suspicion as a scholarly source, that attitude is changing

    Most wikipedia articles are well-sourced; they are extensively footnoted. If a factual assertion is made on a wikipedia article, there is a good chance that there is a reference to the source of the assertion. So there’s no need to cite wikipedia; cite the (verifiable, reliable) source that it cites.

    WRT the Obama Conspiracy Theories page, there are many editors who watch that page, to prevent shoddy research (on both sides of the issue) from creeping into the article.

  13. avatar
    Dave June 8, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Scott Brown: I wouldn’t research how to clip my nails on Wikipedia. It is NOT an acceptable reference for any college/business level research; therefore, it is worthless in my opinion.

    For those who are less particular, a list of 11 wikipedia articles relating to nail clipping can be found here. Senator Brown is correct, you really shouldn’t cite these references in your scholarly articles on nail care. For that, it would be better to use the authoritative nail clipping section of the Britannica. If there is one.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 8, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    Scott Brown: I wouldn’t research how to clip my nails on Wikipedia. It is NOT an acceptable reference for any college/business level research; therefore, it is worthless in my opinion.

    Tell us again about your extensive research on “ALL Presidents” which lead you to believe James Buchanan was the 14th president of the United States. I’m sure Franklin Pierce would be upset with you for forgetting him. Its obvious you did no research as usual.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents

    The sad thing is this is becoming more common. Its sad when foreigners who apply to be citizens know more about general knowledge of the United States than born citizens.

  15. avatar
    Arthur June 8, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    bob:
    Bob:

    You wrote, “So there’s no need to cite wikipedia; cite the (verifiable, reliable) source that it cites.WRT the Obama Conspiracy Theories page, there are many editors who watch that page, to prevent shoddy research (on both sides of the issue) from creeping into the article.

    I can’t speak for all disciplines, but the humanities use citation guidelines developed by the Modern Language Association, and they run counter to what you suggest. Except for common knowledge, information obtained from an encyclopedia (print or digital) and paraphrased or directly quoted, must be appropriately cited. Likewise, if one cites a footnote or endnote from a source like Wikipedia, this information must be correctly identified in a parenthetical citation. For example, the Wikipedia summary on James Buchanan contains this sentence: “Buchanan had once hoped that his presidency might rank in history with that of George Washington.[1]” The footnote explains that this paraphrase comes from a book by Phllip S. Klein publshed by the American Biograph Press. It would be an act of academic dishonesty for students to suggest they found this information by reading Klein’s book if they had actually gotten it from Wikipedia.

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy June 8, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Arthur: I can’t speak for all disciplines, but the humanities use citation guidelines developed by the Modern Language Association, and they run counter to what you suggest. Except for common knowledge, information obtained from an encyclopedia (print or digital) and paraphrased or directly quoted, must be appropriately cited. Likewise, if one cites a footnote or endnote from a source like Wikipedia, this information must be correctly identified in a parenthetical citation. For example, the Wikipedia summary on James Buchanan contains this sentence: “Buchanan had once hoped that his presidency might rank in history with that of George Washington.[1]” The footnote explains that this paraphrase comes from a book by Phllip S. Klein publshed by the American Biograph Press. It would be an act of academic dishonesty for students to suggest they found this information by reading Klein’s book if they had actually gotten it from Wikipedia.

    However, it would not academic dishonesty to use Wikipedia as a starting point for their research, and then go to (and cite) the Wiki cited material directly.

  17. avatar
    Arthur June 8, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    JoZeppy:

    I fully agree. I use Wikipedia a lot to gain initial familiarity with a topic.

  18. avatar
    Greg June 8, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    Scott Brown: It is NOT an acceptable reference for any college/business level research; therefore, it is worthless in my opinion.

    On July 30, 2008, Volokh.com, a blog by law professors, noted that Wikipedia had been cited by the courts more than 300 times.

  19. avatar
    JoZeppy June 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm #

    Greg: On July 30, 2008, Volokh.com, a blog by law professors, noted that Wikipedia had been cited by the courts more than 300 times.

    The Green Bag had a short article about the March 30, 2007, Chilean Constitutional Court’s citing of Wikipedia (Elise Hendrick, “Wikipedia: The New Consensual Reality,” 11Green Bag 2d. 187 (2008).)

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Lupin: A very apt parallel, yes. Minus the French accent, I suppose.

    I meant THIS Trainman.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    The Green Bag had a short article about the March 30, 2007, Chilean Constitutional Court’s citing of Wikipedia (Elise Hendrick, “Wikipedia: The New Consensual Reality,” 11Green Bag 2d. 187 (2008).)

    Berg cited the Italian Wikipedia in Berg v Obama, et al.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    bob: Most wikipedia articles are well-sourced

    Well they are and they aren’t. The Wikipedia doesn’t allow “original research.” If I go down to some presidential library and find something in a document that’s not published, that information is out of bounds for the Wikipedia. I’d have to find it cited in somebody’s book or on a web site first. A popularly reported piece of misinformation can make it into the Wikipedia.

  23. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 8, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    Personally, when someone points me to that page, I always make sure to check the talk page. It is great entertainment!

  24. avatar
    bob June 8, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well they are and they aren’t. The Wikipedia doesn’t allow “original research.” If I go down to some presidential library and find something in a document that’s not published, that information is out of bounds for the Wikipedia. I’d have to find it cited in somebody’s book or on a web site first. A popularly reported piece of misinformation can make it into the Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia will be the first to the say it prefers verifiability over truth, and that often leads to odd results.

    A rule I particularly disagree with is the no-citing-to-court-documents rule. Which I think that is a good rule in many cases (i.e., just because something is alleged in a court document doesn’t make it necessarily true), a blanket rule is counter to verifiability. If Taitz alleges Obama has 39 social security numbers, the court documents shouldn’t be cited for that proposition, but they should be cited for the proposition that Taitz is making the allegation, as it is undeniable that she did, in fact, make the allegation.

  25. avatar
    bob June 8, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Personally, when someone points me to that page, I always make sure to check the talk page. It is great entertainment!

    True. The best action is on the talk pages.

  26. avatar
    Lupin June 9, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I meant THIS Trainman.

    Sorry, I got him mixed up with The Merovingian.

    Yes, that looks just like how I portray some of our resident trolls.

    Brice Spence, lovely actor. Was in MAD MAX and currently plays the wizard in LEGEND OF THE SEEKER.

  27. avatar
    Black Lion June 9, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    Do you think that with this article will have any effect on our buddy Manning? I mean he was adamant that Obama did not attend Columbia nor lived in Harlem. Or is it part of the CIA and Obama conspiracy as the birthers like to believe….

    http://www.nydailynews.com/real_estate/2010/06/08/2010-06-08_president_obamas_upper_west_side_apartment_for_rent_lived_there_as_columbia_coll.html

    “The first New York apartment Barack Obama lived in during his days as a Columbia University student is up for rent.

    The small third-floor railroad flat on W. 109th St. between Amsterdam and Columbus Aves. is in need of new occupants – and can be snapped up for $1,900 a month.

    Step inside and it’s clear the President has come a long way since his student days.

    There are one main bedroom, a living room, kitchen and bathroom, plus another tiny windowless room that could serve as an office or a bedroom.”