Ben1985 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Just been looking on the internet and came across the following on the squad list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_Athletic_A.F.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Just been looking on the internet and came across the following on the squad list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_Athletic_A.F.C. Click on his name and you get a more detailed profile - surly this is a wind-up???? "Oldham Athletic Oldham Athletic signed Aliadière on September 23, 2010, on a free transfer. Aliadière signed a two year contract and will wear the number 8 shirt for the 2010-11 season" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 now that would be a signing ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben1985 Posted September 24, 2010 Author Share Posted September 24, 2010 Click on his name and you get a more detailed profile - surly this is a wind-up???? "Oldham Athletic Oldham Athletic signed Aliadière on September 23, 2010, on a free transfer. Aliadière signed a two year contract and will wear the number 8 shirt for the 2010-11 season" Unless he's willing to play for a pittance I can't see it being true. He would be a excellent signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) now that would be a signing ! Must be bollocks, apparently he did his knee ligaments on trial at West Ham a couple of weeks back! Edited September 24, 2010 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Gotta be someone dicking with the site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Gotta be someone dicking with the site He's out injured for the season Crocked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 He's out injured for the season Crocked Ive took the liberty of deleting it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggie21 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 wikipedia is never a reliable source, easy to edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyleArmy Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 he at middlesbrough trying to get fit i got him as a friend on facebook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 he at middlesbrough trying to get fit i got him as a friend on facebook. so you now got lee hughes smalley,alliadaire,n :censored: on ya friends list then..stalker.hahahah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 wikipedia is never a reliable source, easy to edit. *sigh* Do some research on that claim. Razza has just proved why it is reliable, as reliable as any other source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggie21 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 *sigh* Do some research on that claim. Razza has just proved why it is reliable, as reliable as any other source. not reliable enough for me, its easy to edit stuff on there and then host it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 its easy to edit stuff on there and then host it. Exactly, it's self repairing - as Razza kindly demonstrated for us. Anyway, you know best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Exactly, it's self repairing - as Razza kindly demonstrated for us. Anyway, you know best. As you say Rummy, (Puts Historian hat on) All sources of information are useful providing you know their limitations.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Exactly, it's self repairing - as Razza kindly demonstrated for us. Anyway, you know best. Nay bother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Exactly, it's self repairing - as Razza kindly demonstrated for us. Anyway, you know best. But then some people, when they're desperately bored but unable to unchain themselves from their computers, wilfully vandalise Wikipedia in the hope of duping Her Majesty's Lazy Fourth Estate into a blunder. This in itself is a skill, so I've heard. Naming no names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveoafc77 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 its reliable because people can delete things that are wrong? lol, but if you use it before its been deleted then you could take it at face value and have grossly inaccurate information. is good for a quick check on things but must always be taken with a pinch of salt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) its reliable because people can delete things that are wrong? lol, but if you use it before its been deleted then you could take it at face value and have grossly inaccurate information. is good for a quick check on things but must always be taken with a pinch of salt! I think people that are able to make up their own minds use a variety of sources. Unfortunately most kids go straight to Wikipedia, makes for some interesting homework/projects, when you get 25/30 that have all copied from Wikipedia and its all complete bollocks - all that despite part of the marking criteria is not to use Wikipedia. It make things way too simple and all so often, so, so wrong! Edited September 24, 2010 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 its reliable because people can delete things that are wrong? lol, but if you use it before its been deleted then you could take it at face value and have grossly inaccurate information. is good for a quick check on things but must always be taken with a pinch of salt! Confession time, I did once edit Ronnie Moore's profile, citing him to be Freddie Boswell's stunt double...I was pissed at the time the night we beat his Tranmere team in the last minute and i'd been in the Corporate Suite for my 30th all afternoon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 its reliable because people can delete things that are wrong? lol, but if you use it before its been deleted then you could take it at face value and have grossly inaccurate information. is good for a quick check on things but must always be taken with a pinch of salt! It's no better or worse than an encyclopaedia off the bookshelf. Nothing is 100% - however, as I've said before it's self repairing, and that's one thing it has over Britannica. Don't use info that's a stub, don't used flagged pages, and always check the pages history (this is a must). If I'm doing research for a project, I'll use wikipedia along with other sources. It's gigantic inaccuracies are a fallacy, it gets vandalised but it's soon put right. There you go anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Checking the revision history on the OAFC page IP addy 86.1.240.62 made the change (- about) at 10:19, 24 September 2010. It's there for all to see.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...;action=history It's probably the same boy who started the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Just been looking on the internet and came across the following on the squad list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_Athletic_A.F.C. Do you know RockyLatic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Checking the revision history on the OAFC page IP addy 86.1.240.62 made the change (- about) at 10:19, 24 September 2010. It's there for all to see.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...;action=history It's probably the same boy who started the thread. I couldn't possibly comment on confidential matters, such as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveoafc77 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 It's no better or worse than an encyclopaedia off the bookshelf. Nothing is 100% - however, as I've said before it's self repairing, and that's one thing it has over Britannica. Don't use info that's a stub, don't used flagged pages, and always check the pages history (this is a must). If I'm doing research for a project, I'll use wikipedia along with other sources. It's gigantic inaccuracies are a fallacy, it gets vandalised but it's soon put right. There you go anyway... encyclopaedia's at least have professional input though and while its true a self repairing tool is good for currency there is no guarentee its done by anyone with expertise, much of the referencing on the site is really poor too and is too easy for people with agenda's to edit causing a biased article. im not saying its not a useful tool but you need to be careful when using it for information your going to rely on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.