Desktop Thread! (Pic Warning)

TOLD YOU not to use wikipedia...it's unreliable CRAP. Especially with stuff like this.

In it's defense, it is as reliable as Encyclopedia Britanica and it told me everything else about the character. You know, if you don't like that it omitted that fact, you can go and, you know, add it.

On a kinda related note

Ryan Reynolds is playing Deadpool in the up and coming X-Men: Origins movie.

edit*
And Holy Crap Ray Park is Snake Eyes in the new G.I. Joe movie...I need to read more movie news!

Lord Grey II wrote:In it's defense, it is as reliable as Encyclopedia Britanica and it told me everything else about the character. You know, if you don't like that it omitted that fact, you can go and, you know, add it.

And in my defense, every time I tried to use it, there would always be one of three things on the page:

"Citation needed"
"Incomplete information"
"Invalidated source."

And wikipedia is nowhere near as reliable as a real encyclopedia. Not to mention a friend of mine informed me that some schools in Canada have banned it's use for research on projects because of it's unreliability. It has nothing to do with what it does or does not say about Deadpool, it's the fact that every time I've tried to use it either the information source or the information itself is either incomplete or invalid.

I do not trust wikipedia.

all of my college profs have said that it's not an acceptable citation. it DOES, however, have links to pages that ARE acceptable citations, so it is a good starting point for many research projects.

Wikipedia itself isn't reliable. It's the other websites that it has links to are (well...SOME...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Nature reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on Encyclopædia Britannica's web site.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia[/url]
It's extensive.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

So, all I'm saying is... wikipedia is pretty good.

Colleges banned wikipedia not because of accuracy issues, but because anybody could edit pages and how frequently it got edited. For example, a person writes something into wikipedia that is totally false, quotes himself in a paper, and then points to it like it is a source of research.

For general information and trivial facts wiki is great. But for actual in depth research it is horrible.

But the wiki article I read did talk about Deadpool's 4th wall breakage. So I got the general info I wanted from wiki.

Um, can anyone else actually see what I wrote in my last post? Cause I can't...

That's a negative captain. I'm seeing blank up there.

I see. Let me repost it then.

Lord Grey II wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Nature reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on Encyclopædia Britannica's web site.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia[/url]
It's extensive.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

So, all I'm saying is... wikipedia is pretty good.

Colleges banned wikipedia not because of accuracy issues, but because anybody could edit pages and how frequently it got edited. For example, a person writes something into wikipedia that is totally false, quotes himself in a paper, and then points to it like it is a source of research.

What the bloody hell.

That's...very weird...

Hmm... well, if anyone wants to read it, you can click the quote button.

On that note, does anyone else have a problem seeing signatures? I've got them enabled and I've never seen one, not even my own...

Yeah, I have that problem too. I keep going back to check to make sure they are enabled, but I never see any.

I just thought we were all signatureless creatures!

Apparently not. There's probably something wrong with the signatures.

What do you guys think of my other potential wallpapers?