dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1294
share rss forum feed


JAAulde
Web Developer
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Williamsport, MD
kudos:3

1 recommendation

The jury (errr, Karl) is in

Remind me to keep Karl out of my Jury pool should I ever find myself on the wrong end of an accusation.

The NYT accuses Google of 1) conspiring 2) with Verizon to have their traffic prioritized. When the results of said conspiracy are shown, it turns out NYT was correct on item 1, dead wrong on item 2. But that doesn't matter to ol' Karl, not at all. NYT accused them so they must be guilty.
--
My Development Sandbox | LinkedIn Profile



N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2

2 recommendations

Anymore, sourcing the NYT is about as credible as sourcing Wikipedia......
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

4 edits
reply to JAAulde

There were a significant number of stories last week using this same anonymous source, claiming a Google/Verizon deal was afoot, and that it wouldn't apply to wireless (Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Dave Burstein). The Times was only one outlet. In fact I think Burstein scooped them all.

Google and Verizon deflected these leaks by focusing on one error in one story: The Times claiming there would be paid prioritization or "pay tiers."

Yes, the Times story sucked. It clearly sounded like it was written by someone who either didn't understand what his source was telling him, or just started covering the neutrality debate yesterday (or both).

But by and large the stories were correct. Verizon and Google were working on a neutrality agreement that didn't apply to wireless in order to try and pre-empt tougher rules. Rules being crafted using an ongoing FCC process they both claimed to be dedicated to...

edit to add links....


Madtown
Premium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to N3OGH

said by N3OGH:

Anymore, sourcing the NYT is about as credible as sourcing Wikipedia......
I trust Wikipedia very much, that where I get most of my information from.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

and that is a problem with Wikipedia. why trust a website where anyone can go in and post any information they see fit? I can go in there and change anything i want to say anything and you'd believe it?



That is why Wiki is not a citable source in schools.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

said by hottboiinnc:

and that is a problem with Wikipedia. why trust a website where anyone can go in and post any information they see fit? I can go in there and change anything i want to say anything and you'd believe it?



That is why Wiki is not a citable source in schools.
Have you ever tried to do that before? Why do some research when you can just demonstrate your personal ignorance?

If you try to change things arbitrarily, no matter how obscure, your changes will be flagged for review and they will be changed back. If you persist with your vandalism you will get a warning, and a failure to stop will result in a ban. A study published in Nature demonstrated Wikipedia is just about as accurate as encyclopedia Britannica.

But don't let facts get in the way of your narrow-mindedness. It's par for the course with us Clevelanders.

ZachAttack

join:2009-05-30
Yorba Linda, CA

1 recommendation

Use Wikipedia as your source for anything meaningful, and you'll get shot down. Wikipedia is good to find sources, but Wikipedia as a Source is a non-starter if you wanna get taken seriously by anyone...


gridlocked

join:2009-08-21
Bristol, RI

I always thought it was a good way to get started because its crowd sourced so you can change incorrect info and it does usually have a lot of citations but I agree its nothing to cite directly for reseach.

said by ZachAttack:

Use Wikipedia as your source for anything meaningful, and you'll get shot down. Wikipedia is good to find sources, but Wikipedia as a Source is a non-starter if you wanna get taken seriously by anyone...

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to sonicmerlin

lol narrow-mindedness? LMAO! A "study" yah a study. If so much is accurate then why is there so much miss information on there then.

For example it used to say LF Ventures is based in GA; when if fact LF Ventures is based in Mooresville NC. Then it was changed to Charlotte. which was still wrong. Their offices are and were in Mooresville, NC.

And ya you can be a Clevelander all you want. I'm not.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods