moonvoice: (Default)
moonvoice ([personal profile] moonvoice) wrote2010-06-19 08:13 am

I am always highly entertained when a Wikipedia page has been vandalised.

Here is some information on the temperament of the Tibetan Mastiff that I found particularly appealing:

They are excellent family dogs - for the right family - and you will find them to be unlikely to eat your babies. Owners must understand canine psychology and be willing and able to assume the primary leadership position. Lack of consistent, rational discipline can result in the creation of dangerous, unpredictable dogs. In this case, baby-eating may be a problem (although this is true of virtually every dog breed, it is more likely with a large, primitive breed.)

Re: For the Lulz

[identity profile] white9-fox.livejournal.com 2010-06-19 12:49 am (UTC)(link)
It's actually not that bad for looking up random info or finding a starting point, studies have been done by professionals to cross-check wikipedia with other databases and wiki is spot on for the most part.

But in terms of argumentation and research papers, yea, I side with you.

Re: Someone is Wrong on the Internet!

[identity profile] perzephone.livejournal.com 2010-06-19 12:52 am (UTC)(link)
Arguing on the internet is one of my hobbies - wikipedia references are guaranteed to make me whip out my stomping boots.

/stomps on your invalid user-edited citations...

/stompstompstomp

Re: Someone is Wrong on the Internet!

[identity profile] white9-fox.livejournal.com 2010-06-19 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
Lol

Re: For the Lulz

[identity profile] darakat-ewr.livejournal.com 2010-06-19 03:18 am (UTC)(link)
But of course academic sources are always correct! (sarcasm mode)

Re: For the Lulz

[identity profile] feralkiss.livejournal.com 2010-06-20 01:41 pm (UTC)(link)
This.