1

Topic: Alternative Wikipedia

Here, I result to a forehead article from Wiki at arguing of this or that question - and always  argument - so there any fool can write everything. What that the anonymous author wrote, that I should trust. Whether there is any authentic source where the information would be so structured and it was not necessary to shovel tons of another's researches for finding of outputs?

2

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Here, I result to a forehead article from Wiki at arguing of this or that question - and always  argument - so there any fool can write everything. Well indeed. Whether Wikipedia does not guarantee validity S> There is any authentic source where the information would be so structured and it was not necessary to shovel tons of another's researches for finding of outputs? Any encyclopedias.

3

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Evgeniy Skvortsov, you wrote: ES> Well indeed. Wikipedia does not guarantee the validity <br/> <span class ='lineQuote level1 '> ES> </span> the Validity the Lord guarantees only. Whether S>> there is any authentic source where the information would be so structured and it was not necessary to shovel tons of another's researches for finding of outputs? ES> Any encyclopedias. What?

4

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> the Validity is guaranteed only by the Lord. It here at what? S> What? , any specialized... As far as I know, there is no analog  with the encyclopedic information. Likely it is expensive.

5

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Here, I result to a forehead article from Wiki at arguing of this or that question - and always  argument - so there any fool can write everything. What that the anonymous author wrote, that I should trust. Trust primary sources links on which are resulted in the end of each viki-article, .

6

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> Trust primary sources links on which are resulted in the end of each viki-article, . Well here I resulted to a forehead the list of unresolved problems : 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u … uroscience 2. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/__ It well cannot accept in any way that the difficult problem of consciousness is officially recognized by the present science and is unsolved. He wants that it was destiny of philosophers and freaks. In lists both in Russian and on  this problem appears. But it began  that any  wrote, why I should trust. And in footnotes there a table of contents of any book, the book paid. On a table of contents it is similar that in the book  unresolved problems and a problem kvalia / a difficult problem of consciousness are described is among them. But the text that is not present... Also what, it turns out it is impossible to trust this list?

7

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S>... But it began  that any  wrote, why I should trust.... S> also what, turns out it is impossible to trust this list? It is possible, but it is not mandatory. It is possible to trust in everything, including that the earth plane. On the other hand, it is not eliminated that this specific list was written really by the fool (in a good case) or someone intentionally wrote it incorrectly (at worst), and really nobody should trust any list who would not write it. In certain cases the law obliges to behave as if you trust (in traffic regulations, for example), and differently you punish; but it is a question not about "I trust - I do not trust". There there is a source, you showed on it. If it is enough of it, it is enough of it. If is not present, you can show on other source which would approach the opponent (depending on the opponent, it can be the Bible, and there can be a reviewed log). And so to repeat, while either it disagrees, or to you does not bother, or you will not change the mind (actually the opponent can be right).

8

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> And in footnotes there a table of contents of any book, the book paid. On a table of contents it is similar that in the book  unresolved problems and a problem kvalia / a difficult problem of consciousness are described is among them. But the text that is not present... S> Also what, turns out it is impossible to trust this list? It is impossible to trust presently to anybody - occasionally even to itself. To me, truth, it is possible to trust... (c)

9

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: whether S> There is any authentic source where the information would be so structured and it was not necessary to shovel tons of another's researches for finding of outputs? Is (including on the Internet +) Encyclopedia Britannica. Also was MS Encarta.

10

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Lazytech: L> Trust primary sources links on which are resulted in the end of each viki-article, . One patriotic troll invented  that tattoos with Stalin's image became with that purpose that ostensibly it is impossible to shoot at them.  article in , with links to invented logs. Mass of liberal mass-media it reprinted. Then  began to refer to these articles as authentic sources for it - the circle was shorted.

11

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

12

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Drobodan Frilich, you wrote: > One patriotic troll invented  that tattoos with Stalin's image became with that purpose that ostensibly it is impossible to shoot at them. > Nakatal article in , with links to invented logs. Mass of liberal mass-media it reprinted. > Then  began to refer to these articles as authentic sources for it - the circle was shorted. Who did not check primary sources under links, that . P.S. Wikipedia - not an ideal, I will not argue. The real story was recalled how there published the erratic information on any person (, the researcher), and then systematically deleted corrections made by it. As a result it had to be published in any log, and then to make the correction to viki-article about, referred to journal article.

13

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Shmj: S> Here, I result to a forehead article from Wiki at arguing of this or that question - and always  argument - so there any fool can write everything. What that the anonymous author wrote, that I should trust. Whether S> there is any authentic source where the information would be so structured and it was not necessary to shovel tons of another's researches for finding of outputs? Independent anything is not present, it is necessary to check all. It absolutely agree with that forehead which with you argues. When you read the scientific article, or at least simply paper encyclopedia - who there is accurately registered for what answers. In Wikipedias, basically it is possible  interesting thoughts, but there anybody for what does not answer. Moreover, in humanitarian sphere Wikipedia is the manipulation tool. The political neutrality is a thing unattainable, in a reality the neutrality is understood quite accurate  as the point of view. Somehow so.

14

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, lpd, you wrote: lpd> Is (including on the Internet +) Encyclopedia Britannica. Also was MS Encarta. Opened a site https://www.britannica.com There offer . I  (while a trial, then are going to write off some cents a day) though articles are accessible and without registration. But here there there is no article about unresolved problems . Even article about Qualia is not present. As that generally is not enough only. And MS Encarta 9 years are not supported.

15

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Here, I result to a forehead article from Wiki at arguing of this or that question - and always  argument - so there any fool can write everything. What that the anonymous author wrote, that I should trust. In Wikipedia each statement should be accompanied by a reference to the source of this statement. Further it is possible to transit under this link and to be convinced that that statement really is, and to familiarize with its substantiation. If the link at the statement is not present to trust this statement it is impossible, as it .

16

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: whether S> There is any authentic source where the information would be so structured and it was not necessary to shovel tons of another's researches for finding of outputs? Only to check links in the bottom of article, only a hardcore.

17

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

Hello, anonymous, you wrote: A> In Wikipedia each statement should be accompanied by a reference to the source of this statement. Further it is possible to transit under this link and to be convinced that that statement really is, and to familiarize with its substantiation. If the link at the statement is not present to trust this statement it is impossible, as it . Well here in article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u … uroscience Consciousness: What is the neural basis of subjective experience, cognition, wakefulness, alertness, arousal, and attention? Is there a "hard problem of consciousness"? If so, how is it solved? What, if any, is the function of consciousness? [1 [2] Has 2 links. Under the first link only a book table of contents, the book paid. It is considered it for acknowledgement? Under the second link article in which the subjects are affected, but direct such statement is not present.

18

Re: Alternative Wikipedia

19

Re: Alternative Wikipedia