WARNING about Wikipedia

Post Reply New Topic

The Singularity is going to make you pay for that remark.

Oh please come on!

What were you looking up that and taking it in. Nothing to get angry over you can't really predict whats going to happen in 2050 you've got another 43 years to go. I wouldn't think about something like that the year I think about is 2007 and whats to come in the next 4 months.

Yes, take Wikipedia with a grain of:

Sodium chloride, also known as common salt, table salt, or halite, is a chemical compound with the formula NaCl. Sodium chloride is the salt most responsible for the salinity of the ocean and of the extracellular fluid of many multicellular organisms. As the main ingredient in edible salt, it is commonly used as a condiment and food preservative. In one gram of sodium chloride, there are approximately 0.3933 grams of sodium, and 0.6067 g of chlorine.
Salt is also the raw material used to produce chlorine which itself is required for the production of many modern materials including PVC and pesticides.
Industrially, elemental chlorine is usually produced by the electrolysis of sodium chloride dissolved in water. Along with chlorine, this chloralkali process yields hydrogen gas and sodium hydroxide, according to the chemical equation
2NaCl + 2H2O → Cl2 + H2 + 2NaOH
Sodium metal is produced commercially through the electrolysis of liquid sodium chloride. This is done in a Down's cell in which sodium chloride is mixed with calcium chloride to lower the melting point below 700 °C. As calcium is more electropositive than sodium, no calcium will be formed at the cathode. This method is less expensive than the previous method of electrolyzing sodium hydroxide.
Sodium chloride is used in other chemical processes for the large-scale production of compounds containing sodium or chlorine. In the Solvay process, sodium chloride is used for producing sodium carbonate and calcium chloride. In the Mannheim process and in the Hargreaves process, it is used for the production of sodium sulfate and hydrochloric acid. THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA!


Next thought: Aspies might be the Singularity. 2ukenkerl is right, computers in and of themselves are impotent in that they lack intelligence. Computers lack the sophistication, refinement, and sensitivity of a lab instrument. Did I mention I can read sensory data with my eyes, thereby bypassing the instrumentation? I am the instrument and highly attentuated. Computers truly are qualitatively no different or better than your washing machine. But, cyberspace is evolving!

Next thought: I am in the midst of a meltdown.....meltdown pending. ie: I am in the Hargreaves process and yielding mental HCl.........I will now go lay down and scream - not kidding. Male friend difficulties:

MENTAL SCREAM (I am multi-tasking whilst melting down)

So, did you go and get your computer out of the garbage, or did you go buy a new one, or are you on someone else's computer now? Did you have to pay a fee to cancel the service?

One thing I like about Wikipedia is the lack of bias. If any argument is found for an opinion in it, there'll be a rebuttal in the next sentence. I also like the depth. I remember when I was a little kid and tried to look up Power Rangers on my World Book CD. It turned up nothing.

In my opinion, it's better to have a few facts out of place than an intentionally exaggurated tale based on what actually happened, which is what you get from the news for example. Stuff gets in WP that's bad, and that's not good, but it's always corrected, unlike in other sources. And if I had read that Bush is the incarnation of Hitler, I wouldn't believe it anyway, so the vandalism isn't really a problem. Any incredible fact like that I'm going to be sceptical about, and I'm going to look at more than one source to confirm it anyway. Most of the time, Wikipedia is very good about where the information came from.

Wikipedia is great for looking up just about any piece of information you could desire, but I wouldn't recommend using any of the articles for research papers or other serious stuff. It is a good place for directing you to other sources of information, though.

That when you read an "official" encylopedia, if there is a fact that is in question either scientifically or historically, the bias of the editor will usually prevail and may be ignored or whitewashed. However, with Wikipedia, you are certain to know about the dispute, since it will certainly be mentioned. In that case, while it might not make Wikipedia more accurate, it will alert you that more research is needed. And, it's a good lesson that so called authoritative sources aren't always so, and unlike past generations, we shouldn't take the words of scholars on faith.

If you question open sources like Wiki, shouldn't you question Brittanica as well?

i know this is an old topic but i must ask how many of u relises the topic creater was joking it scared me all the serious anserws

How do you even really know? It would be scarier if we thought what the OP claimed to, etc....