As some of you know I debate on Facebook all the time. Well, any chance I get. Here’s a recap of an encounter that pretty much illustrates what typically goes on. If you don’t have time to read it, let me sum it up with this diagram:

So a lot of times my liberal friends will use Wikipedia as their source for all things backing up their weak arguments. Yes folks – the site where I have submitted the following entry just to illustrate how unreliable a source it is. This is the entry I was able to make on the date of Barack Obama’s birthday, August 4.  (don’t know how long link will be valid, so click the image if hard to read)

I’m sorry but when Rosie O’Donnell is citing Wikipedia for her crazy-ass 9/11 conspiracy theories – as opposed, to say actual civil and structural engineers from Purdue University that prove her wrong - then you know there is a HUUUUUUGE problem with using Wikipedia as the basis for any argument. And funny how in this clip, Rosie insisted they get a physicists from Harvard or Yale to prove her wrong and they’d bring them on the View, but I’ve yet to see those engineers from Purdue actually on the View. Nice. 

Batshit-crazy, Wikipedia-loving liberal: 0

Common-sense, Purdue Engineers: 1 (Okay, I mean 1,000,000,000 gazillion points over you, Rosie!!!!)

Boooo-yaaaaaaaaaaah!

Anyovergloating, back to liberals’ Wikipedia obsession, sometimes hailed as “Lib-pedia.” You have to give credit though - liberals are sure stubborn as all get. They have got their methods and they’re sticking to ‘em. I’ve got one liberal friend who literally uses a Wikipedia source in every debate on Facebook. To paint a proper picture, I’ve probably had nearly 150 debates and he’s been in about 75% of them relentlessly presenting his “facts” in full force. Needless to say I spend probably more time debunking his “facts” with things like evidence and logic (I know, so crazy of me!) then he probably spends actually listening to my point of view as he so claims he does – can I get a wiki source on that, BTW?

But there’s a real problem with using Wikipedia outside of just my ranting. From the National Association of Scholars:

The problem with Wikipedia isn’t so much its potentially flawed nature.  That happens with all materials, whether printed or digitally delivered.  Of course, the argument is always that electronically delivered materials can easily be updated, and that is true…Open access works like Wikipedia have lowered our threshold for flawed work or work that may be in error.  When the Rawls biography appeared in Wikipedia it was virtually (no pun intended) completely wrong.  Many Rawlsian scholars sent in corrections, and it was changed in about 36 hours.  Twenty-four hours later, it showed up all wrong again. 

Also, Wikipedia it too widely used as a sole source. As the article states, I agree that Wikipedia can serve as a great starting point but one shouldn’t rely on it as a basis for proof to theories, hypotheses or arguments.

The second reason that open access materials like Wikipedia present difficulties is the tendency of young people from 3-35 to use them exclusively, regardless of the project and no matter what the reason.  Wikipedia may be a fine start to a project (though even here caution should be observed) but for too many students it is the first and last place they look.

And just to illustrate my point even further (as if I HAD to), here is the song that comes into most Liberals’ heads once they find a skewed “fact” on Wikipedia that supports their illogical and weak argument. It’s like totally a proven fact. I mean all you have to do is look it up, I found it on Wikipedia. Geeesh!

So next time you are debating with your liberal friend and they aren’t making any sense (oh, I meant then everytime) just ask – Are ya citing Wikipedia there, smartypants? If they get angry, then you know you really hit a nerve and are probably right, as usual.