Way way too funny!
I'm not perfect and neither are you.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God. kjv
Ephisians 4: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. kjv
You missed this part at the bottom:
Main article: List of Indiana Pacers head coaches
There have been 13 head coaches for the Pacers franchise. Larry Staverman was the first coach of the team in 1967, when the team was in the ABA. Coach Bobby Leonard holds the most win in franchise history with 328 in his 12 season with the Pacers. Larry Brown came to the Pacers and led the team to many playoff appearances after the acquisition of star Reggie Miller. Larry Bird took over the team in 1997 and coached until 2000. Bird took the Pacers to their only NBA Finals appearance in the 1999-2000 season. The current head coach of the Pacers is Jim O'Brien, who has coached the team since 2007. Indiana is in need of a new coach, and is accepting applications in person at Larry Birds house in French Lick.
In person? Hell, I thought all you had to do was call him.
what about McBob's beard?
See? I told y'all that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information.
Looks like everything's been changed back.
That's why Wikipedia is an irrelevant source for collecting research.
Although that's a true statement.
Since many of the sources come from other websites or news articles, much information tends to be biased or from an institution with a personal agenda.
No, Wikipedia is not as accurate as an encyclopedia, and should only be used in reference to a quick question, and not to be used AT ALL for educational purposes.
word. i love wikipedia, it is fantastic for looking up stuff quickly on obscure subjects and to gain general knowledge.
it should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be used to cite anything in any semi-academic work. unless of course, you are writing a paper about the dangers of academically citing from wikipedia.
I had a polisci professor let us use wikipedia as a source. Loved him.
Actually, the strength of Wikipedia is exactly what we saw in this thread --- the information on that page was quickly rectified by a system of check and balances. Even if the previous info was true.
There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...
I rely heavily on Wiki technical articles for engineering concepts and where the info is more review I never find it inaccurate.
Yes, luckily this could never happen with bogus written articles where if someone read it they always checked back to see the page 27 retraction 2 days later.And the weakness is that someone can come along while misinformation is still in place and run with it without ever checking back to see if it changed.
Come on Bill.
When someone points me to an encyclopedia that is constantly updated with the latest info but doesn't have any errors at any time, then I'll listen to how Wiki sucks.
Right now if something of note does happen to the Pacers, what single source point for all info (ie, encyclopedia type reference sources) is most likely to be updated with that info? Oh, let me guess, the 2009-2010 Pacers media guide will be all over it, and that's not even a source for any non-Pacers info.
People love the pranks on Wiki, and a big reason is due to it's popularity, and in turn that's due to its usefulness.
Why did you use "or"? That's not different than what Kid Minny said. What you are describing is one of the CHECKS the system has in place. It's content that more than just novices look at, and those that care have a voice in making sure it remains accurate. This is the strength of it all, the information is disseminated across a large group of interactive users rather than by a few, unknown and perhaps biased entities.
Pacers.com can contain only the content that the Pacers wish to perpetuate, so they can have inaccuracies or misinformation and you'll NEVER find out otherwise, not even a few hours later when someone emails them to point out that the info is wrong.
Plus Wiki knows what articles are being updated and can track those edits. It's not like it's just a wide world where they are blind to any activity going on.
I don't get how a small group of people writing something and putting it in stone is certain to be more accurate or less plagued by inaccuracies, some of which might even be intentional.
Proof? I guess all those years policing encyclopedias I suppose.No, Wikipedia is not as accurate as an encyclopedia
Quick, what's the latest print copy of Britannica say about the Pacers? I hope it doesn't say Troy Murphy is member of the team.