Seems like you are saying something a little different than the OSU experts.
I am just in the planning stages of my next robbery. The Fort Knox page says that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds 5000 metric tonnes of gold bullion whereas the Federal Reserve Bank’s page says it holds 7000 metric tonnes.
Which is it? I need to know how many trucks to bring.
This would be a good set up for an Oceans Eleven-type film. There is one important qualitative difference between the gold in Fort Knox and the gold in Federal Reserve Bank of New York:
So you’d be breaking international law. Not to mention, you’d have about a dozen foreign agencies hot on your trail. Would make an awesome blockbuster movie though.
Try reading the whole sentence, then get back to me if it still puzzles you.
Hint: I am saying exactly the same thing.
I will admit I don’t understand.
wiki said: “no herbicide”
You said: “flat wrong…just as much herbicide”
osu said: “no herbicide”
If you didn’t say “flat wrong” then I would think there is at least the possibility you are implying that no plants require herbicide so there is no gain for hemp.
No, it didn’t. You need to learn how to read complete sentences.
Hint: Look up the definition of the word “general”.
I think the suggestion is that what makes Wiki bad is also what makes it good! An analogy might be mutations in life forms, almost all of which are indifferent or bad, but which led to evolution’s Supreme Creation … the octopus!
As others state, Wikipedia is only a starting point for real research. But it is an extremely valuable resource for many casual queries.
One does come across confused reasonings and petty vandalisms. (I’d ask those who complain, whether they do their altruistic duty and click Edit when they encounter such?)
So, you think these two statements convey the same basic idea?
“…Hemp requires just as much herbicide…”
“…and no herbicides are generally used in fiber hemp production…”
If “requires just as much herbicide” is “exactly” the same as you previously stated as “no herbicides are generally required” it means that for ALL CROPS “no herbicides are generally required”.
Is this what you are trying to tell us? If not, please explain how those two statements are exactly the same because I’m still not following it.
Did you read my posts?
My experience has been that attempting to correct such errors is a waste of time that leads to edit wars.
I’m sure details vary by type of correction. In the past few weeks, I’ve made about 6 minor corrections without trouble. (There was one thoughtless revert, but that was resolved with a brief polite exchange on the Talk page.)
I realize some types of dispute will lead to edit wars. I once got a request to participate in such a war (under the rules, more numerous side wins) but had to decline as my Internet connectivity was then too poor to wage war effectively. 
There is no reference material subject to greater scrutiny than wikipedia. It is literally the closest thing to a sum total of human knowledge we are likely to see, and it is a serious contender for greatest human accomplishment in the past 1000 years.
An awesome blockbuster movie starring Dick Cheney!
I think Jimmy Wales is here!
We seem to have achieved a broad consensus that, at least on controversial topics, such as the Philippine-American War, the Vietnam War, the Armenian Genocide, and just about anything relating to the ME, wikipedia is not that reliable a source.
I use Wikipedia for information about various sciences, technologies, ancient history, statistics and other hard data on current events, etc. I see good, thorough information, often with good links.
To expect Wikipedia – or any source – to give “objective”(*) information about on-going controversies is to ask for the near impossible. Indeed, “objective information” about such things is often almost an oxymoron.
Blake, it sounds to me like Wikipedia and you took opposite extremes in the hemp discussion.
Do you agree with OSU that no herbicides are generally used in fiber hemp production? Do you agree that hemp has an “exceptional ability…to suppress weed populations”?
If so, can you explain how you reconcile those statements with your own statement that “Hemp requires just as much herbicide and pesticide as any similar crop grown in the same locale”? Unless you’re defining “similar” so narrowly that no other crop exists, or unless you’re claiming that some crop I’ve never heard of is similar to hemp, I can’t see how your statement is in agreement with OSU’s.
Indeed, your statement seems more in contradiction with OSU’s than the bit you quote from Wikipedia, given that they can define “requires” in such a way as to make it fairly compatible with OSU’s statement.
Utter rubbish, serious reference works do rather better in giving objective and balanced views than Wiki, where articles are so frequently mish mashes of competing edits between partisans and include even the most fringe information (indeed as the fringe information by woo woos is often citable on the internet it seems easier to include than serious work that is not internet accessible, and thus more easily " challenged" by the ’ editors ').
It’s a useful tool, if one treats it with a proper degree of skepticism, but it’s frequently pure tripe no better than a popular low-quality reference work that my mum used to buy me when I was a small lad in the pre internet era. It has its place and uses, but limited.
That is pure tripe.
There is plenty of reference material that gets great scrutiny - peer reviewed science references (of course if greater scrutiny is imply more eyeballs of amateurs who then edit per their whim, like the proverbial monkeys) for instance. It is in no way the “sum total of human knowledge” - perhaps the sum total of obsessive, semi autistic internet nerd knowledge, in particular in the Anglo world, but hardly sum of human knowledge. As for greatest human accomplishment, that is sheer madness. It’s a useful and fun popular tool, not a serious work.
I too would like clarification on this point.
I honestly don’t see any such consensus on this thread or elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly has its faults and others have said it’s best used as a first read to get a general idea of a subject but on the whole it’s not a lot less accurate than other encyclopedias. I had a look at the Phillippines war article and this is what it said:
The 1.4 million number is mentioned as a specific allegation and not as a statement of fact. And it’s not as if it’s easy to get accurate figures of civilian casualties in a war that happened more than 100 years. After all nobody knows for sure how many civilians have been killed in the Iraq war
Me too, I’m still confused. Blake can you help us understand?