>>>>>
>>>>>Have I ever mentioned how much I love Wiki "facts"? ;)
>>>>
>>>>But it's on the internet. Surely it must be true!
>>>
>>>What exactly is wrong with Wikis ? Where exactly one is supposed to quick-check for facts?
>>>
>>>'Ministry of Truth' ?
>>
>>I think I do an adequate job of breaking down the issue with Wiki in message#1544675.
>>
>>I was responding to a post where the author cited a wiki writing Wikipedia seems to show that the biggest common denominators are: The author is using the wiki as a statement of fact.
>
> >In my response I demonstrate how those wiki "facts" are not. Wiki can be modified by anyone and thus there is oversight but often that's to require citations. If one digs into the citations then the context of the statement can be flushed out. However, much more often than not, the citations are not followed and what's written in the wiki is cited as fact as it was in the message I responded to.
>
>Hmm? My statement, as you yourself quote, was 'Wikipedia seems to show.....'

I responded to the entirety of your response, not merely one line.

You snipped a bit too much, allow me to refresh.
Me: The tea party movement is about 3 things and only 3 things. Fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free market economic policies.

Anyone claiming anything else is not a part of the movement.

You: Hmm. Given that the tea party is not a political party per se I'm not sure *who* is qualified to define the manifesto.

You correctly point out that the "tea party" is not a singular political entity, then you imply that anyone's definition of their "manifesto" (btw: love that word in this context) may be applicable. As an example you cite, with the caveat "seems to show", the first items listed in the "Views of Supporters" section of the wiki. Since the tea party is a national movement made up of multiple organizations and those items come from a small regional poll they do not merit being listed as "factors" let alone being considered as the top "Views" as wiki presents them.

You conclded with with Your three factors come further down the list :-}

With this you've implied that those "Views" are at the top of a "list" and that the 3 I listed are of less importance. You did not caveat this statement with a "seems to show".

I'll give you that you did smiley, however, I took that more as a snark.