Geoffrey Tolwyn

[Dahan]

Well, Wikipedia is this online type of encyclopedia where everyone is able to contibrute. Check www.wikipedia.org. There's a lot of stuff there to read for me whenever I'm bored. Sadly because everyone is able to edit, it's not always the greatest source of information in terms of quality.

I have looked at the site, some of the stuff is pretty much accurate although some of the references is making me scratch my head
Although it could do more about the capital ships thou

 

[Nomad Terror]

The general theory behind wiki is that the more users who contribute to a source, the more accurate it becomes.

As with any other source, if you see a wikipedia article that does not have a References section, you should probably err on the side of caution.

 

[ChrisReid]

Because Spacebattles encourages idiocy like trying to compare different universes with different technologies and then debating what side is 'better', ignoring both logic and common sense.

It's really incredible that someone organized all the horrible newsgroup crosspost idiots into one community. It's got to be some cynical person who's playing a giant practical joke on the internet.

 

[Bob McDob]

Do we know who this author is?

Well, whoever it is, that last bit's gone now. Hooray for Lunix democracy. I think.

 

[Moonsword]

*takes a look at Space Battles, recoils in horror*

Uhm... where do they find these idiots? It's like 13 year old fanboys are the only people in there, judging from some of the topics.

 

[Delance]

If by space they mean idiot, it's all very on-topic.

 

[Moonsword]

I never said it was off-topic, just stupid. But then, I fled very, very quickly, so maybe I missed something.

And yes, Idiot Battles seems accurate...

 

[Delance]

I meant the debates on space battles being on topic because everything about them is stupid.

 

[Bob McDob]

Hehehe, Spacebattles even has a section on Wikipedia where it claims to be the largest scifi discussion board on the interweb:

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

Due to the nature of the board, the merits of a position or the strength of a side are more typically determined by the prevailing politics of the board than by actual argumentation.

Sounds about right, although I'd probably substitute "prevailing politics" with something more choice.