Wikipedia's featured article for the next 24 hrs spotlights Army

[Michael Dorosh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canada#Change_of_emphasis_in_Military_section

"Canada" is the featured article at wikipedia for the next day or so - see the link above to their talk page. Some guy from the Bahai faith has the main article reading as posted - that Canada has done peacekeeping for many years, and in addition, like, fought in some wars.  I don't have the eloquence to counter what he's saying on the Talk page, but if anyone else feels like investing some time to help build consensus, your input would be welcomed.

 

[R_Collins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canada#Change_of_emphasis_in_Military_section

"Canada" is the featured article at wikipedia for the next day or so - see the link above to their talk page. Some guy from the Bahai faith has the main article reading as posted - that Canada has done peacekeeping for many years, and in addition, like, fought in some wars.  I don't have the eloquence to counter what he's saying on the Talk page, but if anyone else feels like investing some time to help build consensus, your input would be welcomed.

Funny. I was of the impression that we became a country in 1867, but we became a NATION at Vimy Ridge, so is the popular saying among historyians. I hate when people play down the participation in wars and seem to believe Canada's primary, if not only, focus is peacekeeping.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yeh...seems to be inaccurate but one guy changing stuff on another guy is lame and against rules. I'm sure the other dude is acting in good faith, he just doesn't know what our true role is. Some other opinions on the Talk page there might sway him. Not a huge deal, but thought I'd mention it here if anyone else is interested.

 

[Zertz]

I'll give it a go. *changes fire-selector to 'tactful'*

Edit: Posted a less than eloquent argument (I blame the numerous end of year essays) need some reinforcements.

 

[pbi]

Zertz: Seems to me that you did a pretty good job clarfying things. Good on you for helpng to educate all those who read Wikipedia.

Cheers

 

[ExSarge]

I think it's important to point out that Wikipedia is gaining a reputation for inaccurate and misleading information. From my own experience I have found sources cited were incorrect and information presented was sometimes less then accurate. An informal, and I admit less then scientific poll this morning, taken over coffee with University students in my work place, did not find any that relied on it. 10 students polled, 8 undergrads 2 post graduate students. Note one had never heard of the site, the two post grads responded with snorts of derision!

 

[big bad john]

Unlike the reliability of our our own wiki site here!  (Shameless plug)

 

[DJ]

I don't have the eloquence to counter what he's saying on the Talk page, but if anyone else feels like investing some time to help build consensus, your input would be welcomed.

You're doing a great job so far. 

I think it's important to point out that Wikipedia is gaining a reputation for inaccurate and misleading information. From my own experience I have found sources cited were incorrect and information presented was sometimes less then accurate. An informal, and I admit less then scientific poll this morning, taken over coffee with University students in my work place, did not find any that relied on it. 10 students polled, 8 undergrads 2 post graduate students. Note one had never heard of the site, the two post grads responded with snorts of derision!

While I personally love the site, and many of my friends humorously credit their degrees to it, I would never reference it (and neither would anybody else I know).  However, I don't think that's its purpose.  Similarly I would never reference any other sort of encyclopedia.  The site is great for introductory research and as a public forum where information is shared.  Despite the views of people who like to knock it, there is a lot of useful information on the site.  Nothing in itself should ever be relied upon in research; Wikipedia is just a great tool to use, not THE tool, but A tool.

edit: I'm not proficient in participating in the 'talk' pages so my opinion won't be added at this time, but why does the 'other guy' believe that it's okay to sacrifice fact for flow?  That seems to be a large part of the argument IMO so far.

 

[xFusilier]

Similarly I would never reference any other sort of encyclopedia.  The site is great for introductory research and as a public forum where information is shared.  Despite the views of people who like to knock it, there is a lot of useful information on the site.  Nothing in itself should ever be relied upon in research; Wikipedia is just a great tool to use, not THE tool, but A tool.

I agree it is WIkipedia is no replacement for primary sources of research, however, I just did a Cell Biology course that had a large amount of technical vocabulary that I had to be confortable with, I found it to be a great resource for things like that.  I've also used it as a primer to a topic that I have to research just to give me a rough idea of where I might want to go.

 

[winchable]

I find it useful for my anatomy and psych classes,
That is if I need a definition and an explanation and I'm not satisfied with the textbooks, I'll use wikipedia.
I don't even think you're allowed to credit it on papers, but if you look at the sources it can give you a place to start.

I find the inaccuracies are rampant on Political or Historical arguments but if you need a quick definition of a leukocyte it's good enough.

 

[Zertz]

I find if you need to know something about any certain topic, Wikipedia is a good place to start. Then once you know a little bit about the topic you can do better research with more specific sources. Definately not the be all and end all. Glad to see the new Wikipedia article for Canada is using Michael Dorosh's edit.