Canberra on Wikipedia?

Oh, just use RiotACT as a source or reference in the text and you should get a link to remain without any bother.

Footloose said :

Hrmmmm…Well, they can’t stop RiotACT from having its own entry altogether…

They probably can, and would. As a rule I don’t think they allow blogs similar online spaces to have their own page on Wikipedia.

Hrmmmm…Well, they can’t stop RiotACT from having its own entry altogether…
that could be fun.
It would also be hilarious watching all the Nutters changing the entries. he he he

Footloose said :

The Canberra Times is listed in the Media section, but RiotAct is not??? A simple oversight but perhaps this should be corrected….

Best of luck arguing this one with the wiki nerds

The Canberra Times is listed in the Media section, but RiotAct is not??? A simple oversight but perhaps this should be corrected….

Skid, warts and all, it’s still a trivia quiz writer’s best friend.

“You may fire when ready!”

Whoops, I missed the word “academic” in your sentence. You can shoulder your arms. No argument there whatsoever.

Anybody citing wikipedia in anything academic should be shot.
Its a useful starting point for getting to better sources, sure.
But its still a quantum encyclopedia, possibly accurate or not, depending on how and when you look at it, and the general mob agreement on a topic.

I like the bibliographies and the links to primary sources. Wikipedia is a starting point not the end point for getting information.

Wikipedia to me is an interesting social experiment. I’d never rely on it for anything somewhat serious.

Exactly the way I feel. I love the ability to read about random subjects, but I trust the info the same way I trust info I get from a random drunk guy in a bar.

I gave up editing wikipedia after making some edits and then watching the trolls, wiki – laywers, and generally a bunch of assholes with nothing better to do that misrepresent facts revert, edit and argue.

It’s a good idea, except people with an actual knowledge of the subject are often over shaddowed by the d*ckhead minority. Unfortunately it means that pages are either very watered down, or it allows the fringe views (often the idiot or miss-informed views) as much presence as the main stream views.

I also have a big problem with their NPOV rules. To me, the accepted point of view held by society is not necessarily a NPOV. However try posting up something which goes against societies grain and see how far you get.

Wikipedia to me is an interesting social experiment. I’d never rely on it for anything somewhat serious.