<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_04_0038243</id>
	<title>UK Police Told To Use Wikipedia When Preparing For Court</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246723560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Half-pint HAL tips news of UK prosecution lawyers who are <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/5726944/Police-officers-told-to-use-Wikipedia-when-preparing-for-court.html">instructing police to study information on Wikipedia</a> when preparing to give expert testimony in court.
<i>"Mike Finn, a weaponry specialist and expert witness in more than 100 cases, told industry magazine Police Review: 'There was one case in a Midlands force where police officers asked me to write a report about a martial art weapon. The material they gave me had been printed out from Wikipedia. The officer in charge told me he was advised by the CPS to use the website to find out about the weapon and he was about to present it in court. I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up.' Mr. Finn, a former Metropolitan Police and City of London officer and Home Office adviser, added that he has heard of at least three other cases where officers from around the country have been advised by the CPS to look up evidence on Wikipedia."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half-pint HAL tips news of UK prosecution lawyers who are instructing police to study information on Wikipedia when preparing to give expert testimony in court .
" Mike Finn , a weaponry specialist and expert witness in more than 100 cases , told industry magazine Police Review : 'There was one case in a Midlands force where police officers asked me to write a report about a martial art weapon .
The material they gave me had been printed out from Wikipedia .
The officer in charge told me he was advised by the CPS to use the website to find out about the weapon and he was about to present it in court .
I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up .
' Mr. Finn , a former Metropolitan Police and City of London officer and Home Office adviser , added that he has heard of at least three other cases where officers from around the country have been advised by the CPS to look up evidence on Wikipedia .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half-pint HAL tips news of UK prosecution lawyers who are instructing police to study information on Wikipedia when preparing to give expert testimony in court.
"Mike Finn, a weaponry specialist and expert witness in more than 100 cases, told industry magazine Police Review: 'There was one case in a Midlands force where police officers asked me to write a report about a martial art weapon.
The material they gave me had been printed out from Wikipedia.
The officer in charge told me he was advised by the CPS to use the website to find out about the weapon and he was about to present it in court.
I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up.
' Mr. Finn, a former Metropolitan Police and City of London officer and Home Office adviser, added that he has heard of at least three other cases where officers from around the country have been advised by the CPS to look up evidence on Wikipedia.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579221</id>
	<title>Re:CPS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Continuation passing style should be in the vocabulary of every programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Continuation passing style should be in the vocabulary of every programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Continuation passing style should be in the vocabulary of every programmer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579729</id>
	<title>I hope they weren't serious cases</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246718700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As they would be tossed out of court after judgement.</p><p>Morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As they would be tossed out of court after judgement.Morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As they would be tossed out of court after judgement.Morons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577643</id>
	<title>Blacks vs. NIGGERS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love black people from Africa.  They come to the USA and they say that they can't stand American blacks because they're self-destructive, racist, maladaptive pieces of shit for the most part though there are some really great exceptions.  It's not race or color of skin because "black people" are NOT niggers.  It's cultural because American black people ARE a bunch of niggers.  Get that chip off your shoulder, quit glorifying violence and drugs and the abuse of women, get a better plan for your life other than being a thug with a shitty attitude, and quit thinking that getting an education is "too white" or anything other than "smart".  That's how American blacks can stop being a bunch of niggers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love black people from Africa .
They come to the USA and they say that they ca n't stand American blacks because they 're self-destructive , racist , maladaptive pieces of shit for the most part though there are some really great exceptions .
It 's not race or color of skin because " black people " are NOT niggers .
It 's cultural because American black people ARE a bunch of niggers .
Get that chip off your shoulder , quit glorifying violence and drugs and the abuse of women , get a better plan for your life other than being a thug with a shitty attitude , and quit thinking that getting an education is " too white " or anything other than " smart " .
That 's how American blacks can stop being a bunch of niggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love black people from Africa.
They come to the USA and they say that they can't stand American blacks because they're self-destructive, racist, maladaptive pieces of shit for the most part though there are some really great exceptions.
It's not race or color of skin because "black people" are NOT niggers.
It's cultural because American black people ARE a bunch of niggers.
Get that chip off your shoulder, quit glorifying violence and drugs and the abuse of women, get a better plan for your life other than being a thug with a shitty attitude, and quit thinking that getting an education is "too white" or anything other than "smart".
That's how American blacks can stop being a bunch of niggers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577949</id>
	<title>happy 4th faggots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>remember that armed men willing to die for freedom is the reason you're not beaten to death by a bunch of muslims for fucking each other up the ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>remember that armed men willing to die for freedom is the reason you 're not beaten to death by a bunch of muslims for fucking each other up the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remember that armed men willing to die for freedom is the reason you're not beaten to death by a bunch of muslims for fucking each other up the ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579673</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is not the problem, the system is, everybody is too busy to be "wasting time" following citations and doing the proper research, a court case takes to long and cost too much public money as it is, so there is presure to get on with it, close it down and get to the next one.<br>Nothing to do with accuracy, justice or honesty.<br>But then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....it never was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is not the problem , the system is , everybody is too busy to be " wasting time " following citations and doing the proper research , a court case takes to long and cost too much public money as it is , so there is presure to get on with it , close it down and get to the next one.Nothing to do with accuracy , justice or honesty.But then ....it never was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is not the problem, the system is, everybody is too busy to be "wasting time" following citations and doing the proper research, a court case takes to long and cost too much public money as it is, so there is presure to get on with it, close it down and get to the next one.Nothing to do with accuracy, justice or honesty.But then ....it never was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577647</id>
	<title>CPS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're using acronyms, you should identify what they stand for since there are lots of readers from outside the UK.  "Characters per second" perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're using acronyms , you should identify what they stand for since there are lots of readers from outside the UK .
" Characters per second " perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're using acronyms, you should identify what they stand for since there are lots of readers from outside the UK.
"Characters per second" perhaps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577797</id>
	<title>citation needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up."
   I think I'd like a little more detail as to what facts he believed and which he didn't, or am I supposed to take his word for it, as he is an "expert". The beauty of wikipedia is it gives you some recourse to ascertain the truth or falsity of a statement via the citations, his statement did not. Wikipedia 1, Expert 0</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up .
" I think I 'd like a little more detail as to what facts he believed and which he did n't , or am I supposed to take his word for it , as he is an " expert " .
The beauty of wikipedia is it gives you some recourse to ascertain the truth or falsity of a statement via the citations , his statement did not .
Wikipedia 1 , Expert 0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up.
"
   I think I'd like a little more detail as to what facts he believed and which he didn't, or am I supposed to take his word for it, as he is an "expert".
The beauty of wikipedia is it gives you some recourse to ascertain the truth or falsity of a statement via the citations, his statement did not.
Wikipedia 1, Expert 0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580585</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose.  <strong>At least they'll be right some of the time.</strong> </p></div><p>So is a broken clock.</p></div><p>Police don't deal with right and wrong, they deal with 'You bad man. Me hit you with stick'. Anything more complex than that should be dealt with by someone professionally qualified.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all , I suppose .
At least they 'll be right some of the time .
So is a broken clock.Police do n't deal with right and wrong , they deal with 'You bad man .
Me hit you with stick' .
Anything more complex than that should be dealt with by someone professionally qualified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose.
At least they'll be right some of the time.
So is a broken clock.Police don't deal with right and wrong, they deal with 'You bad man.
Me hit you with stick'.
Anything more complex than that should be dealt with by someone professionally qualified.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28581375</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1246732980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seriously... What do you expect, if you look up an article on a martial arts weapon, if teenagers/kids/TMNT fans have the ability to edit it?</p></div></blockquote><p>Edit? How about editorialise, revise, review and completely control all information on the page, and all access to page edits. The ability to twist the article to their own point of view, lock it down and keep it there for as long as they hold an interest. The ability to undo edits they disagree with and ban those who try to set things right.</p><p><i>That</i> is how we should assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. Not by the information on it, but by the process through which that information is created. Right now the process is rotten and corrupt, and so is Wikipedia. As a whole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... What do you expect , if you look up an article on a martial arts weapon , if teenagers/kids/TMNT fans have the ability to edit it ? Edit ?
How about editorialise , revise , review and completely control all information on the page , and all access to page edits .
The ability to twist the article to their own point of view , lock it down and keep it there for as long as they hold an interest .
The ability to undo edits they disagree with and ban those who try to set things right.That is how we should assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole .
Not by the information on it , but by the process through which that information is created .
Right now the process is rotten and corrupt , and so is Wikipedia .
As a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... What do you expect, if you look up an article on a martial arts weapon, if teenagers/kids/TMNT fans have the ability to edit it?Edit?
How about editorialise, revise, review and completely control all information on the page, and all access to page edits.
The ability to twist the article to their own point of view, lock it down and keep it there for as long as they hold an interest.
The ability to undo edits they disagree with and ban those who try to set things right.That is how we should assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole.
Not by the information on it, but by the process through which that information is created.
Right now the process is rotten and corrupt, and so is Wikipedia.
As a whole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28589381</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1246796700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>screenshots or it didn't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>screenshots or it did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>screenshots or it didn't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580599</id>
	<title>Re:Heh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it hard to take seriously anybody who uses the word "testilying".  Talk to me when you get past this need for sixth-grade-level name calling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to take seriously anybody who uses the word " testilying " .
Talk to me when you get past this need for sixth-grade-level name calling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to take seriously anybody who uses the word "testilying".
Talk to me when you get past this need for sixth-grade-level name calling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717</id>
	<title>what makes this a problem?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1246642200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes this a problem? Is it a problem? Is the contention "what makes an expert" or that a supposed expert isn't able to recall the information from resident memory and experience?</p><p>This is problematic, however, when wp provides non-factual information. In my mind, it calls to credulity the "expert witness" concept in general. If we've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them, what is their value? Especially in light of the supposed factual question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes this a problem ?
Is it a problem ?
Is the contention " what makes an expert " or that a supposed expert is n't able to recall the information from resident memory and experience ? This is problematic , however , when wp provides non-factual information .
In my mind , it calls to credulity the " expert witness " concept in general .
If we 've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them , what is their value ?
Especially in light of the supposed factual question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes this a problem?
Is it a problem?
Is the contention "what makes an expert" or that a supposed expert isn't able to recall the information from resident memory and experience?This is problematic, however, when wp provides non-factual information.
In my mind, it calls to credulity the "expert witness" concept in general.
If we've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them, what is their value?
Especially in light of the supposed factual question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578521</id>
	<title>Re:what makes this a problem?</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1246740420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that Wikipedia == hearsay.
<p>
There is no "expert" validation of the information posted there. A lot of stuff is anonymous and that which isn't cannot be 100\% validated to be from the individual who claims authorship. The writers cannot be cros-examined in a court (as an expert witness could).
</p><p>
The other <b>MAJOR</b> problem is that it is too easy to fabricate a case. If the police were to start writing Wiki articles about the people they arrest, or the possessions they have when arrested, it becomes a farce.
</p><p>
Finally, if citing Wiki is enough to get your university work marked down (or dismissed altogether) it should be inadmissable in law</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Wikipedia = = hearsay .
There is no " expert " validation of the information posted there .
A lot of stuff is anonymous and that which is n't can not be 100 \ % validated to be from the individual who claims authorship .
The writers can not be cros-examined in a court ( as an expert witness could ) .
The other MAJOR problem is that it is too easy to fabricate a case .
If the police were to start writing Wiki articles about the people they arrest , or the possessions they have when arrested , it becomes a farce .
Finally , if citing Wiki is enough to get your university work marked down ( or dismissed altogether ) it should be inadmissable in law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Wikipedia == hearsay.
There is no "expert" validation of the information posted there.
A lot of stuff is anonymous and that which isn't cannot be 100\% validated to be from the individual who claims authorship.
The writers cannot be cros-examined in a court (as an expert witness could).
The other MAJOR problem is that it is too easy to fabricate a case.
If the police were to start writing Wiki articles about the people they arrest, or the possessions they have when arrested, it becomes a farce.
Finally, if citing Wiki is enough to get your university work marked down (or dismissed altogether) it should be inadmissable in law</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578133</id>
	<title>*edit edit edit*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 5th Amendment is a multiple Grammy-winning American popular music vocal group, whose repertoire also includes pop, R&amp;B, soul, and jazz.</p><p>The 5th Amendment was best-known during the late 1960s and early 1970s for popularizing the hits "Up, Up and Away", Wedding Bell Blues", "Stoned Soul Picnic", "One Less Bell to Answer", "(Last Night) I Didn't Get to Sleep at All", and "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In", as well as the eponymous 5th Amendment and The Magic Garden LP recordings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 5th Amendment is a multiple Grammy-winning American popular music vocal group , whose repertoire also includes pop , R&amp;B , soul , and jazz.The 5th Amendment was best-known during the late 1960s and early 1970s for popularizing the hits " Up , Up and Away " , Wedding Bell Blues " , " Stoned Soul Picnic " , " One Less Bell to Answer " , " ( Last Night ) I Did n't Get to Sleep at All " , and " Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In " , as well as the eponymous 5th Amendment and The Magic Garden LP recordings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 5th Amendment is a multiple Grammy-winning American popular music vocal group, whose repertoire also includes pop, R&amp;B, soul, and jazz.The 5th Amendment was best-known during the late 1960s and early 1970s for popularizing the hits "Up, Up and Away", Wedding Bell Blues", "Stoned Soul Picnic", "One Less Bell to Answer", "(Last Night) I Didn't Get to Sleep at All", and "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In", as well as the eponymous 5th Amendment and The Magic Garden LP recordings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577889</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Indepen</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1246644600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902</a> [theonion.com]

Nuff said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 [ theonion.com ] Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 [theonion.com]

Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578661</id>
	<title>Better than the old way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246699620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here he says some of the stuff was "made up". In the old model the "expert" himself makes the stuff up live at the court...</p><p>I'm too lazy to go looking for the study that compared wikipedia's accuracy with that of some traditional encyclopedias and found out that wikipedias accuracy perfectly compared to the ones printed on dead trees.</p><p>Some people just don't get it, wikipedia is a vault of interconnected concepts and ideas, not a truth engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here he says some of the stuff was " made up " .
In the old model the " expert " himself makes the stuff up live at the court...I 'm too lazy to go looking for the study that compared wikipedia 's accuracy with that of some traditional encyclopedias and found out that wikipedias accuracy perfectly compared to the ones printed on dead trees.Some people just do n't get it , wikipedia is a vault of interconnected concepts and ideas , not a truth engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here he says some of the stuff was "made up".
In the old model the "expert" himself makes the stuff up live at the court...I'm too lazy to go looking for the study that compared wikipedia's accuracy with that of some traditional encyclopedias and found out that wikipedias accuracy perfectly compared to the ones printed on dead trees.Some people just don't get it, wikipedia is a vault of interconnected concepts and ideas, not a truth engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578147</id>
	<title>I don't see what the big deal is</title>
	<author>portforward</author>
	<datestamp>1246648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is lots of very useful information on the internet.  Martial Arts weapons are a perfectly good example of finding high-quality, even admissable evidence.  There is a Youtube series devoted for researching just such a topic.  Feel free to search for "Ask a Ninja".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is lots of very useful information on the internet .
Martial Arts weapons are a perfectly good example of finding high-quality , even admissable evidence .
There is a Youtube series devoted for researching just such a topic .
Feel free to search for " Ask a Ninja " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is lots of very useful information on the internet.
Martial Arts weapons are a perfectly good example of finding high-quality, even admissable evidence.
There is a Youtube series devoted for researching just such a topic.
Feel free to search for "Ask a Ninja".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579355</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1246713660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Within 10 mins accuracy, a broken clock has a 0.7\% chance of being correct. I would think any arbitrary section from Wikipedia has higher chances than that no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Within 10 mins accuracy , a broken clock has a 0.7 \ % chance of being correct .
I would think any arbitrary section from Wikipedia has higher chances than that no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Within 10 mins accuracy, a broken clock has a 0.7\% chance of being correct.
I would think any arbitrary section from Wikipedia has higher chances than that no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645</id>
	<title>Heh...</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1246641540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up</p></div></blockquote><p>Just like police testimony in general!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made upJust like police testimony in general !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made upJust like police testimony in general!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578509</id>
	<title>Re:what makes this a problem?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246740180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expert witnesses are rarely asked for book facts. Experts (at least in our courts) are usually asked for their opinion on a specific matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expert witnesses are rarely asked for book facts .
Experts ( at least in our courts ) are usually asked for their opinion on a specific matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expert witnesses are rarely asked for book facts.
Experts (at least in our courts) are usually asked for their opinion on a specific matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675</id>
	<title>CPS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is CPS such a common abbreviation that every reader is expected to know what it stands for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is CPS such a common abbreviation that every reader is expected to know what it stands for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is CPS such a common abbreviation that every reader is expected to know what it stands for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578957</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1246705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt.</p></div><p>That's exactly the problem - people don't question it. Especially when the defence solicitor is presented with the prosecutions "evidence" on the steps, on the way in to court (i.e. so late that they don't have time to examine it, or refute it - but not late enough that they can complain to the court that they never received it. This is a common practice.)
</p><p>
Add in to this, most solicitors and judges are wholly clueless when it comes to technical matters. Most will not have heard of Wikipedia, and those who have know it to be an "online encyclopedia" - as that's what their children tell them it is.
</p><p>
Apart from a few high level murder cases, the quality of evidence and the conclusions drawn from it are excruciatingly bad. I suppose in that case, Wiki "evidence" is therefore no worse than any other kind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least with Wikipedia ( most ) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt.That 's exactly the problem - people do n't question it .
Especially when the defence solicitor is presented with the prosecutions " evidence " on the steps , on the way in to court ( i.e .
so late that they do n't have time to examine it , or refute it - but not late enough that they can complain to the court that they never received it .
This is a common practice .
) Add in to this , most solicitors and judges are wholly clueless when it comes to technical matters .
Most will not have heard of Wikipedia , and those who have know it to be an " online encyclopedia " - as that 's what their children tell them it is .
Apart from a few high level murder cases , the quality of evidence and the conclusions drawn from it are excruciatingly bad .
I suppose in that case , Wiki " evidence " is therefore no worse than any other kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt.That's exactly the problem - people don't question it.
Especially when the defence solicitor is presented with the prosecutions "evidence" on the steps, on the way in to court (i.e.
so late that they don't have time to examine it, or refute it - but not late enough that they can complain to the court that they never received it.
This is a common practice.
)

Add in to this, most solicitors and judges are wholly clueless when it comes to technical matters.
Most will not have heard of Wikipedia, and those who have know it to be an "online encyclopedia" - as that's what their children tell them it is.
Apart from a few high level murder cases, the quality of evidence and the conclusions drawn from it are excruciatingly bad.
I suppose in that case, Wiki "evidence" is therefore no worse than any other kind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579129</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246708860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.</p></div><p>Citation or I don't believe you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're so easily convinced that something is " truth " then its not Wikipedia that 's the problem.Citation or I do n't believe you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.Citation or I don't believe you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577829</id>
	<title>Re:CPS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crown Prosecution Service (American's can call this a district attorney, they're the prosecution)<br>Feel free to mod me up.</p><p>Ironically, you can look this up at <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CPS" title="wiktionary.org">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CPS</a> [wiktionary.org]. I also knew this before having to look it up, so I can say it's actually accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crown Prosecution Service ( American 's can call this a district attorney , they 're the prosecution ) Feel free to mod me up.Ironically , you can look this up at http : //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CPS [ wiktionary.org ] .
I also knew this before having to look it up , so I can say it 's actually accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crown Prosecution Service (American's can call this a district attorney, they're the prosecution)Feel free to mod me up.Ironically, you can look this up at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CPS [wiktionary.org].
I also knew this before having to look it up, so I can say it's actually accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580797</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is NOT RESEARCH</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1246728660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research</i>

</p><p>...and every college professor in the country just cringed.  <b>Looking up a subject in Wikipedia is not "research" in the traditional sense you are using it.</b>

</p><p>There's a reason many schools and professors don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research ...and every college professor in the country just cringed .
Looking up a subject in Wikipedia is not " research " in the traditional sense you are using it .
There 's a reason many schools and professors do n't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research

...and every college professor in the country just cringed.
Looking up a subject in Wikipedia is not "research" in the traditional sense you are using it.
There's a reason many schools and professors don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580377</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is not a primary source</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246724940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is not a primary source.  It's excellent for background and self-education but for any serious purpose such as preparing expert testimony you must follow the links to the primary sources (and get those links from two or more secondary sources).  This applies to textbooks and handbooks as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia , like any encyclopedia , is not a primary source .
It 's excellent for background and self-education but for any serious purpose such as preparing expert testimony you must follow the links to the primary sources ( and get those links from two or more secondary sources ) .
This applies to textbooks and handbooks as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is not a primary source.
It's excellent for background and self-education but for any serious purpose such as preparing expert testimony you must follow the links to the primary sources (and get those links from two or more secondary sources).
This applies to textbooks and handbooks as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577969</id>
	<title>Found it on Wikipedia</title>
	<author>AmigaHeretic</author>
	<datestamp>1246645620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition\_for\_Positive\_Sexuality" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition\_for\_Positive\_Sexuality</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition \ _for \ _Positive \ _Sexuality [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition\_for\_Positive\_Sexuality [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578485</id>
	<title>Re:CPS?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246739880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh? Good you cleared that up, I was thinking about Child Protective Services and was sitting here puzzled why they needed Wikipedia to prove Martial Arts weapons are not toys for kids...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ?
Good you cleared that up , I was thinking about Child Protective Services and was sitting here puzzled why they needed Wikipedia to prove Martial Arts weapons are not toys for kids.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh?
Good you cleared that up, I was thinking about Child Protective Services and was sitting here puzzled why they needed Wikipedia to prove Martial Arts weapons are not toys for kids...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578499</id>
	<title>Contractions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246740120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people are slowly eroding my ability to write correctly!</p><p>It's = "It is"<br>Its = "It possesses"</p><p>There = "A place"<br>Their = "They own"<br>They're = "They are"</p><p>I've seen "it's" use incorrectly so many times that I recently caught myself<br>using it wrong.  Someone save me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people are slowly eroding my ability to write correctly ! It 's = " It is " Its = " It possesses " There = " A place " Their = " They own " They 're = " They are " I 've seen " it 's " use incorrectly so many times that I recently caught myselfusing it wrong .
Someone save me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people are slowly eroding my ability to write correctly!It's = "It is"Its = "It possesses"There = "A place"Their = "They own"They're = "They are"I've seen "it's" use incorrectly so many times that I recently caught myselfusing it wrong.
Someone save me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579547</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246716360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had one or two broken clocks. They did not work at all. Unfortunately, could not confirm this case to be universal on either wikipedia or google. This is meant as 1/4 of a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had one or two broken clocks .
They did not work at all .
Unfortunately , could not confirm this case to be universal on either wikipedia or google .
This is meant as 1/4 of a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had one or two broken clocks.
They did not work at all.
Unfortunately, could not confirm this case to be universal on either wikipedia or google.
This is meant as 1/4 of a joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578517</id>
	<title>Never trust a cop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246740360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone trust the testimony from a pig anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone trust the testimony from a pig anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone trust the testimony from a pig anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577599</id>
	<title>They would be better off using snopes.com.</title>
	<author>ProfanityHead</author>
	<datestamp>1246641060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, snopes is always correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , snopes is always correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, snopes is always correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578315</id>
	<title>They should have just posted an "Ask Slashdot"</title>
	<author>Psychotria</author>
	<datestamp>1246651080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they'd posted an "Ask Slashdot" story they'd have a million or so armchair experts willing to provide testimony at the drop of a hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 'd posted an " Ask Slashdot " story they 'd have a million or so armchair experts willing to provide testimony at the drop of a hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they'd posted an "Ask Slashdot" story they'd have a million or so armchair experts willing to provide testimony at the drop of a hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577697</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246641960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose.  At least they'll be right some of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all , I suppose .
At least they 'll be right some of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose.
At least they'll be right some of the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578129</id>
	<title>How stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, how stupid are people?  I really don't understand.  Wikipedia is an amazing source of information.  Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia.  I honestly don't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics.  That said, people should believe, but verify what they read on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not perfect,  but the error rate is lower than most sources. Furthermore, the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject.  It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say.  If money or people's lives depend on the answer, it is especially important to verify Wikipedia's information.<br>At this point, I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia's entry.</p><p>"Trust but verify"  It doesn't get any more simple than that.</p><p>Besides, Wikipedia's entries are rarely exhaustive.  Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information.  The key word here is overview.  Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , how stupid are people ?
I really do n't understand .
Wikipedia is an amazing source of information .
Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia .
I honestly do n't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics .
That said , people should believe , but verify what they read on Wikipedia .
Wikipedia is not perfect , but the error rate is lower than most sources .
Furthermore , the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject .
It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say .
If money or people 's lives depend on the answer , it is especially important to verify Wikipedia 's information.At this point , I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia 's entry .
" Trust but verify " It does n't get any more simple than that.Besides , Wikipedia 's entries are rarely exhaustive .
Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information .
The key word here is overview .
Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, how stupid are people?
I really don't understand.
Wikipedia is an amazing source of information.
Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia.
I honestly don't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics.
That said, people should believe, but verify what they read on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not perfect,  but the error rate is lower than most sources.
Furthermore, the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject.
It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say.
If money or people's lives depend on the answer, it is especially important to verify Wikipedia's information.At this point, I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia's entry.
"Trust but verify"  It doesn't get any more simple than that.Besides, Wikipedia's entries are rarely exhaustive.
Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information.
The key word here is overview.
Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578251</id>
	<title>Reminds me of a certain high school</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246649460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply mentioning Wikipedia will earn you a long chat, in which it is explained that the site entirely made up and you will get in trouble if you're seen using it.</p><p>But when the administrators are asked to write a report about a computer related discipline of a student, they turn in several pages of Wikipedia articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply mentioning Wikipedia will earn you a long chat , in which it is explained that the site entirely made up and you will get in trouble if you 're seen using it.But when the administrators are asked to write a report about a computer related discipline of a student , they turn in several pages of Wikipedia articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply mentioning Wikipedia will earn you a long chat, in which it is explained that the site entirely made up and you will get in trouble if you're seen using it.But when the administrators are asked to write a report about a computer related discipline of a student, they turn in several pages of Wikipedia articles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577859</id>
	<title>Next week in court...</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1246644000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyer: "Mr. Finn, would you please tell us what you know about ninjas?"</p><p>Mr. Finn: "Certainly. 1. Ninjas are mammals. 2. Ninjas fight ALL the time. 3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyer : " Mr. Finn , would you please tell us what you know about ninjas ? " Mr .
Finn : " Certainly .
1. Ninjas are mammals .
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time .
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyer: "Mr. Finn, would you please tell us what you know about ninjas?"Mr.
Finn: "Certainly.
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579803</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1246719300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, all sources are suspect, but not equally so.   Expert testimony should meet certain quality standards.</p><p>Think about the OJ trial.  Johnny Cochran did not roll over and die in the face of forensic evidence in that trial. Athough OJ may have been guilty as hell, Cochran did his job professionally where the LAPD did not. This demonstrates an important point.   Standards for what is presented as "expert opinion" do not preclude challenging such opinions. In fact standards should make challenges easier where the most common types of defects of evidence are present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , all sources are suspect , but not equally so .
Expert testimony should meet certain quality standards.Think about the OJ trial .
Johnny Cochran did not roll over and die in the face of forensic evidence in that trial .
Athough OJ may have been guilty as hell , Cochran did his job professionally where the LAPD did not .
This demonstrates an important point .
Standards for what is presented as " expert opinion " do not preclude challenging such opinions .
In fact standards should make challenges easier where the most common types of defects of evidence are present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, all sources are suspect, but not equally so.
Expert testimony should meet certain quality standards.Think about the OJ trial.
Johnny Cochran did not roll over and die in the face of forensic evidence in that trial.
Athough OJ may have been guilty as hell, Cochran did his job professionally where the LAPD did not.
This demonstrates an important point.
Standards for what is presented as "expert opinion" do not preclude challenging such opinions.
In fact standards should make challenges easier where the most common types of defects of evidence are present.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578031</id>
	<title>Most other sources "make stuff up" also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm not saying Wikipedia is more creditable it's not like other sources of information are as reliable as one would think.  During my academic days I would find journals riddled with illogical conclusions, misleading facts, and statistics w/ absolutely no citations or indications on where they came from.  While tracking some facts down I found surprising evidence against what several highly credited researchers stated in their articles.

Now back to wikipedia... at least wikipedia is convenient.  I can check out the history see if any weird changes were made, or if there's a discussion on the issue.  If I find facts contrary to the original writers I can bring them into the argument, and they can be discussed at length if needed.  W/ an academic journal I have to write a review, and most likely get ignored since I'm not really anybody of academic importance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm not saying Wikipedia is more creditable it 's not like other sources of information are as reliable as one would think .
During my academic days I would find journals riddled with illogical conclusions , misleading facts , and statistics w/ absolutely no citations or indications on where they came from .
While tracking some facts down I found surprising evidence against what several highly credited researchers stated in their articles .
Now back to wikipedia... at least wikipedia is convenient .
I can check out the history see if any weird changes were made , or if there 's a discussion on the issue .
If I find facts contrary to the original writers I can bring them into the argument , and they can be discussed at length if needed .
W/ an academic journal I have to write a review , and most likely get ignored since I 'm not really anybody of academic importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm not saying Wikipedia is more creditable it's not like other sources of information are as reliable as one would think.
During my academic days I would find journals riddled with illogical conclusions, misleading facts, and statistics w/ absolutely no citations or indications on where they came from.
While tracking some facts down I found surprising evidence against what several highly credited researchers stated in their articles.
Now back to wikipedia... at least wikipedia is convenient.
I can check out the history see if any weird changes were made, or if there's a discussion on the issue.
If I find facts contrary to the original writers I can bring them into the argument, and they can be discussed at length if needed.
W/ an academic journal I have to write a review, and most likely get ignored since I'm not really anybody of academic importance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577803</id>
	<title>Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't we assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole, instead of declaring it useless because people write stupid things about celebrities or martial arts weapons?</p><p>Seriously... What do you expect, if you look up an article on a martial arts weapon, if teenagers/kids/TMNT fans have the ability to edit it? It's like all the times that "news reporters" get annoyed because Republicans edit the entry on Democrat senators, or v.v. and invent stupid stuff about them.</p><p>The rest of wikipedia can be wonderful and valuable information, written by people who are experts in their fields. Let's cheer it for that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't we assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole , instead of declaring it useless because people write stupid things about celebrities or martial arts weapons ? Seriously... What do you expect , if you look up an article on a martial arts weapon , if teenagers/kids/TMNT fans have the ability to edit it ?
It 's like all the times that " news reporters " get annoyed because Republicans edit the entry on Democrat senators , or v.v .
and invent stupid stuff about them.The rest of wikipedia can be wonderful and valuable information , written by people who are experts in their fields .
Let 's cheer it for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't we assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole, instead of declaring it useless because people write stupid things about celebrities or martial arts weapons?Seriously... What do you expect, if you look up an article on a martial arts weapon, if teenagers/kids/TMNT fans have the ability to edit it?
It's like all the times that "news reporters" get annoyed because Republicans edit the entry on Democrat senators, or v.v.
and invent stupid stuff about them.The rest of wikipedia can be wonderful and valuable information, written by people who are experts in their fields.
Let's cheer it for that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577639</id>
	<title>Wikipedia as a source of truth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is now the source of truth, but the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with truth but only with an agreement about already published sources, where complete nonsense almost inevitably follows.<br>An interesting discussion on Wikipedia as Truth by popularity is here:<br>http://www.pandalous.com/nodes/truth\_by\_popularity</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is now the source of truth , but the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with truth but only with an agreement about already published sources , where complete nonsense almost inevitably follows.An interesting discussion on Wikipedia as Truth by popularity is here : http : //www.pandalous.com/nodes/truth \ _by \ _popularity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is now the source of truth, but the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with truth but only with an agreement about already published sources, where complete nonsense almost inevitably follows.An interesting discussion on Wikipedia as Truth by popularity is here:http://www.pandalous.com/nodes/truth\_by\_popularity</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578343</id>
	<title>You need to know how to read it.</title>
	<author>readin</author>
	<datestamp>1246737780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're just learning for fun, then most of the time you can just read.
<br>
If the topic is somewhat controversial, check out the discussion page to see what topics are being avoided due to lack of agreement, what points of view (POVs) are being squashed, and what POV pushing may happen to be in the article when you read it.
<br>
Always pay attention to things that just don't seem right.
<br>
If you're reading for something serious where you have to be right (a research paper, a trial, etc.), don't believe anything that isn't sourced and make sure the sources say what the article claims they say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're just learning for fun , then most of the time you can just read .
If the topic is somewhat controversial , check out the discussion page to see what topics are being avoided due to lack of agreement , what points of view ( POVs ) are being squashed , and what POV pushing may happen to be in the article when you read it .
Always pay attention to things that just do n't seem right .
If you 're reading for something serious where you have to be right ( a research paper , a trial , etc .
) , do n't believe anything that is n't sourced and make sure the sources say what the article claims they say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're just learning for fun, then most of the time you can just read.
If the topic is somewhat controversial, check out the discussion page to see what topics are being avoided due to lack of agreement, what points of view (POVs) are being squashed, and what POV pushing may happen to be in the article when you read it.
Always pay attention to things that just don't seem right.
If you're reading for something serious where you have to be right (a research paper, a trial, etc.
), don't believe anything that isn't sourced and make sure the sources say what the article claims they say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28581907</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>Suddenly\_Dead</author>
	<datestamp>1246738020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I do not trust Wikipedia, and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is.</p></div></blockquote><p>Your example doesn't prove it to be a bad idea, exactly. Your example proves that using it incorrectly is a bad idea. Anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows that you don't use it for proper research, or as a final say in anything; you use it if you want to read a general summary about something you've got a bit of curiousity about and maybe for links to other, peer-reviewed sources.</p><p>Like I pointed out in another Wikipedia thread, it even has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk\_disclaimer" title="wikipedia.org">disclaimer</a> [wikipedia.org] reminding users that the validity of the content can't be guaranteed. And as the Grandparent said, you shouldn't be blindly trusting any source anyways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not trust Wikipedia , and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is.Your example does n't prove it to be a bad idea , exactly .
Your example proves that using it incorrectly is a bad idea .
Anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows that you do n't use it for proper research , or as a final say in anything ; you use it if you want to read a general summary about something you 've got a bit of curiousity about and maybe for links to other , peer-reviewed sources.Like I pointed out in another Wikipedia thread , it even has a disclaimer [ wikipedia.org ] reminding users that the validity of the content ca n't be guaranteed .
And as the Grandparent said , you should n't be blindly trusting any source anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not trust Wikipedia, and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is.Your example doesn't prove it to be a bad idea, exactly.
Your example proves that using it incorrectly is a bad idea.
Anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows that you don't use it for proper research, or as a final say in anything; you use it if you want to read a general summary about something you've got a bit of curiousity about and maybe for links to other, peer-reviewed sources.Like I pointed out in another Wikipedia thread, it even has a disclaimer [wikipedia.org] reminding users that the validity of the content can't be guaranteed.
And as the Grandparent said, you shouldn't be blindly trusting any source anyways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580479</id>
	<title>Re:Respect my authority</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1246725900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unless of course obscure topics are not considered notable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless of course obscure topics are not considered notable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless of course obscure topics are not considered notable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907</id>
	<title>Respect my authority</title>
	<author>robbiedo</author>
	<datestamp>1246644900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In five years, Wikipedia will likely become the most authoritative source for all basic information. It really is becoming one of the most amazing cooperative human endeavors when you consider it's scope and scale on even the most mundane and obscure topics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In five years , Wikipedia will likely become the most authoritative source for all basic information .
It really is becoming one of the most amazing cooperative human endeavors when you consider it 's scope and scale on even the most mundane and obscure topics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In five years, Wikipedia will likely become the most authoritative source for all basic information.
It really is becoming one of the most amazing cooperative human endeavors when you consider it's scope and scale on even the most mundane and obscure topics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579089</id>
	<title>Re:Heh...</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1246708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if you don't believe a word of what Wikipedia says, it's probably a good idea to study Wikipedia just in case you need to rebuke any of its "facts".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you do n't believe a word of what Wikipedia says , it 's probably a good idea to study Wikipedia just in case you need to rebuke any of its " facts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you don't believe a word of what Wikipedia says, it's probably a good idea to study Wikipedia just in case you need to rebuke any of its "facts".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580505</id>
	<title>Don't believe everything you read?</title>
	<author>blindseer</author>
	<datestamp>1246726080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Eleanor Coner, information officer of The Scottish Parent Teacher Council, said last year: "We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.</p> </div><p>That is dangerous coming from a teacher.  If they teach the children critical thinking skills then it will be impossible to properly indoctrinate them.</p><p>I remember reading in my high school history book on how the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the US Constitution assures rights to the individual but the 2nd amendment assures the states have the right to have a police force.  My critical thinking skills at the time led me to question that interpretation, and I am quite certain now that the Constitution as amended does guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.  Judging from my conversations with people about current events it would seem that many people had similar writings in their high school history books and did believe what they read.</p><p>Perhaps the Scottish Parent Teacher Council does not have that concern since they do not have the right to self defense codified as we do on this side of the Atlantic.  The teaching of not believing everything you hear might work in their favor after the news articles on shootings and stabbings going up after the banning of the carrying of firearms and knives.  No Scott would actually injure another with a weapon to steal a few quid from their wallet, right?  Carrying weapons is illegal and no one would break that law, right?  Never mind that theft is illegal as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : Eleanor Coner , information officer of The Scottish Parent Teacher Council , said last year : " We accept that as a sign of the times , but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read .
That is dangerous coming from a teacher .
If they teach the children critical thinking skills then it will be impossible to properly indoctrinate them.I remember reading in my high school history book on how the 1st , 3rd , 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th , and 8th amendments to the US Constitution assures rights to the individual but the 2nd amendment assures the states have the right to have a police force .
My critical thinking skills at the time led me to question that interpretation , and I am quite certain now that the Constitution as amended does guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms .
Judging from my conversations with people about current events it would seem that many people had similar writings in their high school history books and did believe what they read.Perhaps the Scottish Parent Teacher Council does not have that concern since they do not have the right to self defense codified as we do on this side of the Atlantic .
The teaching of not believing everything you hear might work in their favor after the news articles on shootings and stabbings going up after the banning of the carrying of firearms and knives .
No Scott would actually injure another with a weapon to steal a few quid from their wallet , right ?
Carrying weapons is illegal and no one would break that law , right ?
Never mind that theft is illegal as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:Eleanor Coner, information officer of The Scottish Parent Teacher Council, said last year: "We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.
That is dangerous coming from a teacher.
If they teach the children critical thinking skills then it will be impossible to properly indoctrinate them.I remember reading in my high school history book on how the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the US Constitution assures rights to the individual but the 2nd amendment assures the states have the right to have a police force.
My critical thinking skills at the time led me to question that interpretation, and I am quite certain now that the Constitution as amended does guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
Judging from my conversations with people about current events it would seem that many people had similar writings in their high school history books and did believe what they read.Perhaps the Scottish Parent Teacher Council does not have that concern since they do not have the right to self defense codified as we do on this side of the Atlantic.
The teaching of not believing everything you hear might work in their favor after the news articles on shootings and stabbings going up after the banning of the carrying of firearms and knives.
No Scott would actually injure another with a weapon to steal a few quid from their wallet, right?
Carrying weapons is illegal and no one would break that law, right?
Never mind that theft is illegal as well.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579405</id>
	<title>Too bad experts don't write wikipedia entries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, some entries in wikipedia are probably written by experts in their field. Others written by well-meaning but misinformed individuals. Then their are the complete lies and fabrications.</p><p>But what if Wikipedia could pay experts to write entries? What if they could have expanded entries as well? For instance I'd love more in depth entries for scientific entries. I do not see anything wrong with people being paid for what they do, and I would actually be willing to donate money to wikipedia for this. I am sure I already can donate, but can I donate with the specific intention of improving certain sections of wikipedia?</p><p>Wikipedia is fantastic, and the more relevant it becomes, the more known and famous, the more it can improve. That they found out that the entry was wrong is a good thing. Let me repeat that, it is a good thing. This way it can be improved. What you should be afraid of are things that aren't discovered, or even worse, silenced. Big nasty (often religious or very rich) groups tends to suppress information. Information should be free, to be verified, discussed, and if needed corrected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , some entries in wikipedia are probably written by experts in their field .
Others written by well-meaning but misinformed individuals .
Then their are the complete lies and fabrications.But what if Wikipedia could pay experts to write entries ?
What if they could have expanded entries as well ?
For instance I 'd love more in depth entries for scientific entries .
I do not see anything wrong with people being paid for what they do , and I would actually be willing to donate money to wikipedia for this .
I am sure I already can donate , but can I donate with the specific intention of improving certain sections of wikipedia ? Wikipedia is fantastic , and the more relevant it becomes , the more known and famous , the more it can improve .
That they found out that the entry was wrong is a good thing .
Let me repeat that , it is a good thing .
This way it can be improved .
What you should be afraid of are things that are n't discovered , or even worse , silenced .
Big nasty ( often religious or very rich ) groups tends to suppress information .
Information should be free , to be verified , discussed , and if needed corrected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, some entries in wikipedia are probably written by experts in their field.
Others written by well-meaning but misinformed individuals.
Then their are the complete lies and fabrications.But what if Wikipedia could pay experts to write entries?
What if they could have expanded entries as well?
For instance I'd love more in depth entries for scientific entries.
I do not see anything wrong with people being paid for what they do, and I would actually be willing to donate money to wikipedia for this.
I am sure I already can donate, but can I donate with the specific intention of improving certain sections of wikipedia?Wikipedia is fantastic, and the more relevant it becomes, the more known and famous, the more it can improve.
That they found out that the entry was wrong is a good thing.
Let me repeat that, it is a good thing.
This way it can be improved.
What you should be afraid of are things that aren't discovered, or even worse, silenced.
Big nasty (often religious or very rich) groups tends to suppress information.
Information should be free, to be verified, discussed, and if needed corrected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577769</id>
	<title>Re:CPS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crown Prosecution Service. It's common enough in the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crown Prosecution Service .
It 's common enough in the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crown Prosecution Service.
It's common enough in the UK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28585369</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia is NOT RESEARCH</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246790640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's a reason many schools and professors don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.</i></p><p>Do you mean another reason, or just that cloistered academics get their feathers ruffled when academia escapes their gated cloister into the hands of the plebian masses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason many schools and professors do n't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.Do you mean another reason , or just that cloistered academics get their feathers ruffled when academia escapes their gated cloister into the hands of the plebian masses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason many schools and professors don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.Do you mean another reason, or just that cloistered academics get their feathers ruffled when academia escapes their gated cloister into the hands of the plebian masses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759</id>
	<title>All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1246642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia (like, say, a textbook) and just doggedly believing everything they read.  At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt.  Follow the citations people.  Do your own research.  If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia ( like , say , a textbook ) and just doggedly believing everything they read .
At least with Wikipedia ( most ) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt .
Follow the citations people .
Do your own research .
If you 're so easily convinced that something is " truth " then its not Wikipedia that 's the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia (like, say, a textbook) and just doggedly believing everything they read.
At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt.
Follow the citations people.
Do your own research.
If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578053</id>
	<title>Surprising?</title>
	<author>frozentier</author>
	<datestamp>1246646760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering the fact that lawyers use MySpace and facebook to gather evidence, why should this be a surprise?

I think Wikipedia is generally a good source for facts.  However, I think anyone who uses the internet AT ALL for important facts is very foolish.  I could get a personalized URL, make up a page full of total nonsense, and there's going to be someone out there citing it as gospel, so to speak.

First step in getting facts you can depend on: Get off the internet and crack open a book.  Stop being LAZY, because looking up stuff on the internet is EASY.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the fact that lawyers use MySpace and facebook to gather evidence , why should this be a surprise ?
I think Wikipedia is generally a good source for facts .
However , I think anyone who uses the internet AT ALL for important facts is very foolish .
I could get a personalized URL , make up a page full of total nonsense , and there 's going to be someone out there citing it as gospel , so to speak .
First step in getting facts you can depend on : Get off the internet and crack open a book .
Stop being LAZY , because looking up stuff on the internet is EASY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the fact that lawyers use MySpace and facebook to gather evidence, why should this be a surprise?
I think Wikipedia is generally a good source for facts.
However, I think anyone who uses the internet AT ALL for important facts is very foolish.
I could get a personalized URL, make up a page full of total nonsense, and there's going to be someone out there citing it as gospel, so to speak.
First step in getting facts you can depend on: Get off the internet and crack open a book.
Stop being LAZY, because looking up stuff on the internet is EASY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580415</id>
	<title>"Cops trained in critical thinking"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246725360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROFL.</p><p>&gt; Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for<br>&gt; Wikipedia. If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he<br>&gt; or she is going to target that info and try to break it.</p><p>She is going to tell the judge the information came from an encyclopedia and the judge is going to disallow it, in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROFL. &gt; Finally , and I think most importantly , think about the fact-checking this provides for &gt; Wikipedia .
If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia , he &gt; or she is going to target that info and try to break it.She is going to tell the judge the information came from an encyclopedia and the judge is going to disallow it , in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROFL.&gt; Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for&gt; Wikipedia.
If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he&gt; or she is going to target that info and try to break it.She is going to tell the judge the information came from an encyclopedia and the judge is going to disallow it, in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577847</id>
	<title>the sum is greater than its parts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in this country, the standards of evidence and what is permissible and what isn't is based on previous court rulings. These are called precidents. Secondly, precidents set by higher courts affect all courts beneath it, however precidents can (and are) reinterpreted to fit local circumstance. What does this have to do with wikipedia? Nothing -- yet.</p><p>Here's the problem: The life of the law isn't knowledge (the present), it's experience (the past). The law can only ever look backwards. Which means that it is always <i>at least</i> one step behind the state of the art. It also depends on every judgment made remaining correct in perpetuity; If copying a music file is wrong now, then unless the law changes, it will always be wrong, even if the methods, economy, societal attitudes, etc., change -- the law will continue to get it's pound of flesh from hapless victims because the law can only look backwards. Because all of these flaws are systemic and cannot be amended, the system is highly dependent on the integrity of the decision-making process. And like all systems, unless standards are rigorously enforced, the margins will start to decay -- whether it's a safety margin, error margin, or civil rights margin, it will decay.</p><p><i>Introducing a source of information which is inherently unreliable into a process that absolutely depends on the integrity of information put into it is not just merely incompetent -- it's grossly negligent.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in this country , the standards of evidence and what is permissible and what is n't is based on previous court rulings .
These are called precidents .
Secondly , precidents set by higher courts affect all courts beneath it , however precidents can ( and are ) reinterpreted to fit local circumstance .
What does this have to do with wikipedia ?
Nothing -- yet.Here 's the problem : The life of the law is n't knowledge ( the present ) , it 's experience ( the past ) .
The law can only ever look backwards .
Which means that it is always at least one step behind the state of the art .
It also depends on every judgment made remaining correct in perpetuity ; If copying a music file is wrong now , then unless the law changes , it will always be wrong , even if the methods , economy , societal attitudes , etc. , change -- the law will continue to get it 's pound of flesh from hapless victims because the law can only look backwards .
Because all of these flaws are systemic and can not be amended , the system is highly dependent on the integrity of the decision-making process .
And like all systems , unless standards are rigorously enforced , the margins will start to decay -- whether it 's a safety margin , error margin , or civil rights margin , it will decay.Introducing a source of information which is inherently unreliable into a process that absolutely depends on the integrity of information put into it is not just merely incompetent -- it 's grossly negligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in this country, the standards of evidence and what is permissible and what isn't is based on previous court rulings.
These are called precidents.
Secondly, precidents set by higher courts affect all courts beneath it, however precidents can (and are) reinterpreted to fit local circumstance.
What does this have to do with wikipedia?
Nothing -- yet.Here's the problem: The life of the law isn't knowledge (the present), it's experience (the past).
The law can only ever look backwards.
Which means that it is always at least one step behind the state of the art.
It also depends on every judgment made remaining correct in perpetuity; If copying a music file is wrong now, then unless the law changes, it will always be wrong, even if the methods, economy, societal attitudes, etc., change -- the law will continue to get it's pound of flesh from hapless victims because the law can only look backwards.
Because all of these flaws are systemic and cannot be amended, the system is highly dependent on the integrity of the decision-making process.
And like all systems, unless standards are rigorously enforced, the margins will start to decay -- whether it's a safety margin, error margin, or civil rights margin, it will decay.Introducing a source of information which is inherently unreliable into a process that absolutely depends on the integrity of information put into it is not just merely incompetent -- it's grossly negligent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28582949</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent!</title>
	<author>pbaer</author>
	<datestamp>1246706460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or the defense could just vandalize the Wikipedia page and then ream the cop's "expert Wikipedia testimony".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the defense could just vandalize the Wikipedia page and then ream the cop 's " expert Wikipedia testimony " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the defense could just vandalize the Wikipedia page and then ream the cop's "expert Wikipedia testimony".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580395</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see what the big deal is</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246725120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big deal is that Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia (or handbook or textbook), is not a primary source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big deal is that Wikipedia , like any encyclopedia ( or handbook or textbook ) , is not a primary source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big deal is that Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia (or handbook or textbook), is not a primary source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578547</id>
	<title>Right tool, wrong application</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246740780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is a nice tool. To look up something, for your personal, private use where a wrong information can't do much more harm than maybe make you look like a fool at the next party when you repeat it and someone who actually knows the subject tells you how it really is. No harm done. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is right about 99\% of the time, fact checked and sourced, but the fact that ANYONE can edit also means that the moment you look up something might be JUST the moment some moron edited the page you visit to push his version of reality and truth.</p><p>Wikipedia is NO source for anyone looking for hard facts for a scientific study, for legal advice or (even worse) medical advice. It's like the old saying, you don't know where it's been, and you don't know who edited it last. The moment the life, wellbeing or freedom of a person or the usefulness of a study is at stake, use something more reliable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is a nice tool .
To look up something , for your personal , private use where a wrong information ca n't do much more harm than maybe make you look like a fool at the next party when you repeat it and someone who actually knows the subject tells you how it really is .
No harm done .
Do n't get me wrong , Wikipedia is right about 99 \ % of the time , fact checked and sourced , but the fact that ANYONE can edit also means that the moment you look up something might be JUST the moment some moron edited the page you visit to push his version of reality and truth.Wikipedia is NO source for anyone looking for hard facts for a scientific study , for legal advice or ( even worse ) medical advice .
It 's like the old saying , you do n't know where it 's been , and you do n't know who edited it last .
The moment the life , wellbeing or freedom of a person or the usefulness of a study is at stake , use something more reliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is a nice tool.
To look up something, for your personal, private use where a wrong information can't do much more harm than maybe make you look like a fool at the next party when you repeat it and someone who actually knows the subject tells you how it really is.
No harm done.
Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is right about 99\% of the time, fact checked and sourced, but the fact that ANYONE can edit also means that the moment you look up something might be JUST the moment some moron edited the page you visit to push his version of reality and truth.Wikipedia is NO source for anyone looking for hard facts for a scientific study, for legal advice or (even worse) medical advice.
It's like the old saying, you don't know where it's been, and you don't know who edited it last.
The moment the life, wellbeing or freedom of a person or the usefulness of a study is at stake, use something more reliable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>themeparkphoto</author>
	<datestamp>1246721580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's my Wikipedia story:

Several years ago, while reading the entry for my Alma Mater, I decided to add my name to the list of notable alumni. (I'm not notable.)

About a year later, when I decided to google my name and was shocked to see myself at my University's website on a page they had enumerating their famous alumni! That's right--my college did its research on Wikipedia.

I decided to write my own wikipedia entry page--which stuck!--and among other references linked back to my University's page showing that I was a notable alumni. (I've written a number of books, so I was able to have a number of references that looked legit enough that my page wasn't deleted.)

Last year, while reading the glossy brochure for my University, there was my name on a page that talked about all the 'famous' people that had graduated there. My little Wikipedia vandalism had come full circle and became the truth!

I do not trust Wikipedia, and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my Wikipedia story : Several years ago , while reading the entry for my Alma Mater , I decided to add my name to the list of notable alumni .
( I 'm not notable .
) About a year later , when I decided to google my name and was shocked to see myself at my University 's website on a page they had enumerating their famous alumni !
That 's right--my college did its research on Wikipedia .
I decided to write my own wikipedia entry page--which stuck ! --and among other references linked back to my University 's page showing that I was a notable alumni .
( I 've written a number of books , so I was able to have a number of references that looked legit enough that my page was n't deleted .
) Last year , while reading the glossy brochure for my University , there was my name on a page that talked about all the 'famous ' people that had graduated there .
My little Wikipedia vandalism had come full circle and became the truth !
I do not trust Wikipedia , and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my Wikipedia story:

Several years ago, while reading the entry for my Alma Mater, I decided to add my name to the list of notable alumni.
(I'm not notable.
)

About a year later, when I decided to google my name and was shocked to see myself at my University's website on a page they had enumerating their famous alumni!
That's right--my college did its research on Wikipedia.
I decided to write my own wikipedia entry page--which stuck!--and among other references linked back to my University's page showing that I was a notable alumni.
(I've written a number of books, so I was able to have a number of references that looked legit enough that my page wasn't deleted.
)

Last year, while reading the glossy brochure for my University, there was my name on a page that talked about all the 'famous' people that had graduated there.
My little Wikipedia vandalism had come full circle and became the truth!
I do not trust Wikipedia, and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580139</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent!</title>
	<author>durdur</author>
	<datestamp>1246722780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you get credit for finding a positive side to the fact that the Web is a vast swamp of variable-quality and ever-changing information. But it is still that. Maybe that does help hone your research and thinking skills, but in fact pretty often even smart, careful people can be fooled or misled by online misinformation. And in a court case especially you don't want that. There's a reason why courts bring in expert witnesses and require some evidence that they actually have expertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you get credit for finding a positive side to the fact that the Web is a vast swamp of variable-quality and ever-changing information .
But it is still that .
Maybe that does help hone your research and thinking skills , but in fact pretty often even smart , careful people can be fooled or misled by online misinformation .
And in a court case especially you do n't want that .
There 's a reason why courts bring in expert witnesses and require some evidence that they actually have expertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you get credit for finding a positive side to the fact that the Web is a vast swamp of variable-quality and ever-changing information.
But it is still that.
Maybe that does help hone your research and thinking skills, but in fact pretty often even smart, careful people can be fooled or misled by online misinformation.
And in a court case especially you don't want that.
There's a reason why courts bring in expert witnesses and require some evidence that they actually have expertise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579063</id>
	<title>Re:How stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Honestly, how stupid are people?  I really don't understand.  Wikipedia is an amazing source of information.  Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia.  I honestly don't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics.  That said, people should believe, but verify what they read on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not perfect,  but the error rate is lower than most sources. Furthermore, the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject.  It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say.  If money or people's lives depend on the answer, it is especially important to verify Wikipedia's information.<br>At this point, I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia's entry.</p><p>"Trust but verify"  It doesn't get any more simple than that.</p><p>Besides, Wikipedia's entries are rarely exhaustive.  Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information.  The key word here is overview.  Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper.</p></div><p>another wikipedian cult member</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , how stupid are people ?
I really do n't understand .
Wikipedia is an amazing source of information .
Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia .
I honestly do n't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics .
That said , people should believe , but verify what they read on Wikipedia .
Wikipedia is not perfect , but the error rate is lower than most sources .
Furthermore , the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject .
It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say .
If money or people 's lives depend on the answer , it is especially important to verify Wikipedia 's information.At this point , I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia 's entry .
" Trust but verify " It does n't get any more simple than that.Besides , Wikipedia 's entries are rarely exhaustive .
Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information .
The key word here is overview .
Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper.another wikipedian cult member</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, how stupid are people?
I really don't understand.
Wikipedia is an amazing source of information.
Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia.
I honestly don't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics.
That said, people should believe, but verify what they read on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not perfect,  but the error rate is lower than most sources.
Furthermore, the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject.
It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say.
If money or people's lives depend on the answer, it is especially important to verify Wikipedia's information.At this point, I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia's entry.
"Trust but verify"  It doesn't get any more simple than that.Besides, Wikipedia's entries are rarely exhaustive.
Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information.
The key word here is overview.
Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper.another wikipedian cult member
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577753</id>
	<title>Lawyer: Objection</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1246642620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Judge: [Citation needed]<br>
Jury: Speedy delete</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge : [ Citation needed ] Jury : Speedy delete</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge: [Citation needed]
Jury: Speedy delete</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28607643</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246979640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've written a number of books</p></div><p>
&nbsp; <br>Could it be that this is enough to make you notble? I've certainly never written a book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written a number of books   Could it be that this is enough to make you notble ?
I 've certainly never written a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've written a number of books
  Could it be that this is enough to make you notble?
I've certainly never written a book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579161</id>
	<title>Re:CPS?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clown Protection Service?</p><p>Clowns, Protesters, and Simpletons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clown Protection Service ? Clowns , Protesters , and Simpletons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clown Protection Service?Clowns, Protesters, and Simpletons?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577743</id>
	<title>There's no souce of information left to trust</title>
	<author>Antidamage</author>
	<datestamp>1246642560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? You can't trust the wikipedia article on The Gun That Shoots Dogs That Bar Bees? How the fuck are we going to convict people who wield it now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
You ca n't trust the wikipedia article on The Gun That Shoots Dogs That Bar Bees ?
How the fuck are we going to convict people who wield it now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
You can't trust the wikipedia article on The Gun That Shoots Dogs That Bar Bees?
How the fuck are we going to convict people who wield it now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578201</id>
	<title>Re:Heh...</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1246648740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just like police testimony in general!</p></div><p>This is right on the money actually.  I know its "funny", and it is, but when you really consider how courts conduct themselves, its pretty accurate and "insightful".  Wiki and expert testimony are both prone to the same degree of accuracy mixed with manure.  The same could be said of most human opinion in general.  Maybe wiki is an appropriate source for "experts" who testify on behalf of one side of an adversarial legal trial process, after all.  Ironic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like police testimony in general ! This is right on the money actually .
I know its " funny " , and it is , but when you really consider how courts conduct themselves , its pretty accurate and " insightful " .
Wiki and expert testimony are both prone to the same degree of accuracy mixed with manure .
The same could be said of most human opinion in general .
Maybe wiki is an appropriate source for " experts " who testify on behalf of one side of an adversarial legal trial process , after all .
Ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like police testimony in general!This is right on the money actually.
I know its "funny", and it is, but when you really consider how courts conduct themselves, its pretty accurate and "insightful".
Wiki and expert testimony are both prone to the same degree of accuracy mixed with manure.
The same could be said of most human opinion in general.
Maybe wiki is an appropriate source for "experts" who testify on behalf of one side of an adversarial legal trial process, after all.
Ironic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579175</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Censorship vs. Free Speech</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246710000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lawyer: Objection<br>Judge: [Citation needed]<br>Jury: Speedy delete</p></div></blockquote><p>You know, this raises an interesting question... What happens if a prosecution is depending on Wikipedia "facts", but some article that could have been useful for the defense was deleted from wikipedia on the basis of not being "noteworthy" enough?</p><p>Wikipedia really is becoming a monster.  Which isn't surprising, considering that it's essentially an attempt to centralise and rule over what was once an open, freely spoken collection of facts (albeit with lots of noise) spread across the web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyer : ObjectionJudge : [ Citation needed ] Jury : Speedy deleteYou know , this raises an interesting question... What happens if a prosecution is depending on Wikipedia " facts " , but some article that could have been useful for the defense was deleted from wikipedia on the basis of not being " noteworthy " enough ? Wikipedia really is becoming a monster .
Which is n't surprising , considering that it 's essentially an attempt to centralise and rule over what was once an open , freely spoken collection of facts ( albeit with lots of noise ) spread across the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyer: ObjectionJudge: [Citation needed]Jury: Speedy deleteYou know, this raises an interesting question... What happens if a prosecution is depending on Wikipedia "facts", but some article that could have been useful for the defense was deleted from wikipedia on the basis of not being "noteworthy" enough?Wikipedia really is becoming a monster.
Which isn't surprising, considering that it's essentially an attempt to centralise and rule over what was once an open, freely spoken collection of facts (albeit with lots of noise) spread across the web.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578601</id>
	<title>Re:CPS?</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1246698540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Feel free to mod me up.</i> <br> <br>Thanks, I will. Oops..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feel free to mod me up .
Thanks , I will .
Oops. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feel free to mod me up.
Thanks, I will.
Oops..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28585601</id>
	<title>Re:It must be true, because someone on /. said so!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246794780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Put up or shut up</i></p><p>I see the answer is not to put up the evidence, and instead hide any support for Wikipedia with mod abuse. Note to mod: just because you disagree, doesn't make it a troll. Why don't you put up the evidence, if you disagree?</p><p>I think this proves that there is no reason to suspect Wikipedia as anymore unreliable than other sources, and you can't trust random posters on a forum who will make stuff up without references, and hide anyone who disagrees. Unlike Wikipedia - putting {{fact}} is the "Put up or shut up" - if you can't put up the reference, the material gets removed. Imagine if it operated such that unsourced material couldn't be removed, and anyone who disagreed had their edits hidden? It'd be a shambles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put up or shut upI see the answer is not to put up the evidence , and instead hide any support for Wikipedia with mod abuse .
Note to mod : just because you disagree , does n't make it a troll .
Why do n't you put up the evidence , if you disagree ? I think this proves that there is no reason to suspect Wikipedia as anymore unreliable than other sources , and you ca n't trust random posters on a forum who will make stuff up without references , and hide anyone who disagrees .
Unlike Wikipedia - putting { { fact } } is the " Put up or shut up " - if you ca n't put up the reference , the material gets removed .
Imagine if it operated such that unsourced material could n't be removed , and anyone who disagreed had their edits hidden ?
It 'd be a shambles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put up or shut upI see the answer is not to put up the evidence, and instead hide any support for Wikipedia with mod abuse.
Note to mod: just because you disagree, doesn't make it a troll.
Why don't you put up the evidence, if you disagree?I think this proves that there is no reason to suspect Wikipedia as anymore unreliable than other sources, and you can't trust random posters on a forum who will make stuff up without references, and hide anyone who disagrees.
Unlike Wikipedia - putting {{fact}} is the "Put up or shut up" - if you can't put up the reference, the material gets removed.
Imagine if it operated such that unsourced material couldn't be removed, and anyone who disagreed had their edits hidden?
It'd be a shambles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580269</id>
	<title>Facts != experts</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1246723860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facts don't make an expert, If the court wanted facts they could look them up in a book (or wikipedia). I'm doing a degree in chemistry and despite what some of my tutors think being able to recall the specific heat capacity of n2o is fairly useless, however being able to interpret the data to give you useful information is what experts do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facts do n't make an expert , If the court wanted facts they could look them up in a book ( or wikipedia ) .
I 'm doing a degree in chemistry and despite what some of my tutors think being able to recall the specific heat capacity of n2o is fairly useless , however being able to interpret the data to give you useful information is what experts do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facts don't make an expert, If the court wanted facts they could look them up in a book (or wikipedia).
I'm doing a degree in chemistry and despite what some of my tutors think being able to recall the specific heat capacity of n2o is fairly useless, however being able to interpret the data to give you useful information is what experts do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578941</id>
	<title>vague claims..</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1246705320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this alleged "martial arts weapon" that was supposed to be written about and can we get a link to the article state when it was given to him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this alleged " martial arts weapon " that was supposed to be written about and can we get a link to the article state when it was given to him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this alleged "martial arts weapon" that was supposed to be written about and can we get a link to the article state when it was given to him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579345</id>
	<title>Love this quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246713420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up."</p><p>Kinda sounds like the testimonies from a lot of "expert" witnesses. I guess Wikipedia DOES belong in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up .
" Kinda sounds like the testimonies from a lot of " expert " witnesses .
I guess Wikipedia DOES belong in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up.
"Kinda sounds like the testimonies from a lot of "expert" witnesses.
I guess Wikipedia DOES belong in court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578567</id>
	<title>Re:Heh...</title>
	<author>tg123</author>
	<datestamp>1246741020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey who modded this as funny it should be insightful.</p><p>Police often exaggerate in court.</p><p><a href="http://oklahomacriminaldefense.blogspot.com/2008/08/police-lying-or-testilying-and.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://oklahomacriminaldefense.blogspot.com/2008/08/police-lying-or-testilying-and.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>Wish I had mod points<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..................</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey who modded this as funny it should be insightful.Police often exaggerate in court.http : //oklahomacriminaldefense.blogspot.com/2008/08/police-lying-or-testilying-and.html [ blogspot.com ] Wish I had mod points ................. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey who modded this as funny it should be insightful.Police often exaggerate in court.http://oklahomacriminaldefense.blogspot.com/2008/08/police-lying-or-testilying-and.html [blogspot.com]Wish I had mod points ..................</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1246644780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose.  <strong>At least they'll be right some of the time.</strong> </p></div><p>So is a broken clock.<br> <br>And this is not meant as a joke.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all , I suppose .
At least they 'll be right some of the time .
So is a broken clock .
And this is not meant as a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose.
At least they'll be right some of the time.
So is a broken clock.
And this is not meant as a joke.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579301</id>
	<title>It must be true, because someone on /. said so!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246712580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put up or shut up: show me the evidence that shows that Wikipedia is no more accurate than random data. Indeed, even show me the evidence that it is significantly unreliable compared with sources that people regularly accept without question (other encyclopedias, the media, people like you posting on Slashdot).</p><p>Otherwise I'll just point out that even a broken clock posting on Slashdot might have a point some of the time. The irony is that whilst dismissing and ridiculing material on Wikipedia out of hand, even when it's referenced, people happily swallow up unreferenced unsupported statements from an anonymous poster on an online forum (which, incidentally, Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable source), simply because it fits with their pre-existing prejudice against the site.</p><p>Last time I looked, broken clocks didn't give a reference to a working clock. So for any article that is referenced (which these days on Wikipedia, is just about any article on mainstream or non-trivial topics), your analogy is not relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put up or shut up : show me the evidence that shows that Wikipedia is no more accurate than random data .
Indeed , even show me the evidence that it is significantly unreliable compared with sources that people regularly accept without question ( other encyclopedias , the media , people like you posting on Slashdot ) .Otherwise I 'll just point out that even a broken clock posting on Slashdot might have a point some of the time .
The irony is that whilst dismissing and ridiculing material on Wikipedia out of hand , even when it 's referenced , people happily swallow up unreferenced unsupported statements from an anonymous poster on an online forum ( which , incidentally , Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable source ) , simply because it fits with their pre-existing prejudice against the site.Last time I looked , broken clocks did n't give a reference to a working clock .
So for any article that is referenced ( which these days on Wikipedia , is just about any article on mainstream or non-trivial topics ) , your analogy is not relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put up or shut up: show me the evidence that shows that Wikipedia is no more accurate than random data.
Indeed, even show me the evidence that it is significantly unreliable compared with sources that people regularly accept without question (other encyclopedias, the media, people like you posting on Slashdot).Otherwise I'll just point out that even a broken clock posting on Slashdot might have a point some of the time.
The irony is that whilst dismissing and ridiculing material on Wikipedia out of hand, even when it's referenced, people happily swallow up unreferenced unsupported statements from an anonymous poster on an online forum (which, incidentally, Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable source), simply because it fits with their pre-existing prejudice against the site.Last time I looked, broken clocks didn't give a reference to a working clock.
So for any article that is referenced (which these days on Wikipedia, is just about any article on mainstream or non-trivial topics), your analogy is not relevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578293</id>
	<title>Re:what makes this a problem?</title>
	<author>Psychotria</author>
	<datestamp>1246650540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them, what is their value? Especially in light of the supposed factual question.</p></div><p>What are you talking about? If you'd said that relying on information gathered only from Wikipedia calls into credibility of the expert witness, then I'd agree. I have been called on to provide expert testimony several times and I wouldn't have even thought of going into court relying only on my memory. The "value" of my testimony is my ability to analyse facts in my field to come up with an informed conclusion. To reach such a conclusion I have to "look things up". I would be more inclined to doubt the testimony of a witness who did <i>not</i> look things up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them , what is their value ?
Especially in light of the supposed factual question.What are you talking about ?
If you 'd said that relying on information gathered only from Wikipedia calls into credibility of the expert witness , then I 'd agree .
I have been called on to provide expert testimony several times and I would n't have even thought of going into court relying only on my memory .
The " value " of my testimony is my ability to analyse facts in my field to come up with an informed conclusion .
To reach such a conclusion I have to " look things up " .
I would be more inclined to doubt the testimony of a witness who did not look things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them, what is their value?
Especially in light of the supposed factual question.What are you talking about?
If you'd said that relying on information gathered only from Wikipedia calls into credibility of the expert witness, then I'd agree.
I have been called on to provide expert testimony several times and I wouldn't have even thought of going into court relying only on my memory.
The "value" of my testimony is my ability to analyse facts in my field to come up with an informed conclusion.
To reach such a conclusion I have to "look things up".
I would be more inclined to doubt the testimony of a witness who did not look things up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577625</id>
	<title>This is sad.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246641360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, had it been <i>defense</i> lawyers coaching the cops to use wikipedia for official functions, it would have been hilarious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , had it been defense lawyers coaching the cops to use wikipedia for official functions , it would have been hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, had it been defense lawyers coaching the cops to use wikipedia for official functions, it would have been hilarious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259</id>
	<title>Excellent!</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, I think it is awesome to have another example of user generated media reaching the big leagues.</p><p>Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research. I would like to see more of this sort of behavior. It is primarily those cops who <i>fail</i> to seek truth through research that are problematic. If a good cop finds out he's got the wrong suspect, he will get that person cleared and go after the real perp. Bad cops are still a problem, but research doesn't change that.</p><p>Third, as noted by others, Wikipedia is a good research tool when used the way <i>all</i> research tools should be; with skepticism, verification, and critical thinking. Cops, particularly detectives, are trained in such thinking. It is how they find bad guys. To the extent that they are not skilled in that art, it is because of a failure to retain sharp enough cops. Fix city hall or increase compensation, but don't blame Wikipedia.</p><p>Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides <i>for</i> Wikipedia. If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he or she is going to target that info and try to break it. They will present their contrary findings, if any, in court. Those proceedings will be public and can be used to vet Wikipedia content. Heck, the attorney him or herself might submit the corrections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I think it is awesome to have another example of user generated media reaching the big leagues.Second , I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research .
I would like to see more of this sort of behavior .
It is primarily those cops who fail to seek truth through research that are problematic .
If a good cop finds out he 's got the wrong suspect , he will get that person cleared and go after the real perp .
Bad cops are still a problem , but research does n't change that.Third , as noted by others , Wikipedia is a good research tool when used the way all research tools should be ; with skepticism , verification , and critical thinking .
Cops , particularly detectives , are trained in such thinking .
It is how they find bad guys .
To the extent that they are not skilled in that art , it is because of a failure to retain sharp enough cops .
Fix city hall or increase compensation , but do n't blame Wikipedia.Finally , and I think most importantly , think about the fact-checking this provides for Wikipedia .
If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia , he or she is going to target that info and try to break it .
They will present their contrary findings , if any , in court .
Those proceedings will be public and can be used to vet Wikipedia content .
Heck , the attorney him or herself might submit the corrections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I think it is awesome to have another example of user generated media reaching the big leagues.Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research.
I would like to see more of this sort of behavior.
It is primarily those cops who fail to seek truth through research that are problematic.
If a good cop finds out he's got the wrong suspect, he will get that person cleared and go after the real perp.
Bad cops are still a problem, but research doesn't change that.Third, as noted by others, Wikipedia is a good research tool when used the way all research tools should be; with skepticism, verification, and critical thinking.
Cops, particularly detectives, are trained in such thinking.
It is how they find bad guys.
To the extent that they are not skilled in that art, it is because of a failure to retain sharp enough cops.
Fix city hall or increase compensation, but don't blame Wikipedia.Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for Wikipedia.
If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he or she is going to target that info and try to break it.
They will present their contrary findings, if any, in court.
Those proceedings will be public and can be used to vet Wikipedia content.
Heck, the attorney him or herself might submit the corrections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577641</id>
	<title>Expert?</title>
	<author>slazzy</author>
	<datestamp>1246641540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Expert witness's shouldn't be allowed to study before preparing for court. A judges job is to read, an expert should be an expert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Expert witness 's should n't be allowed to study before preparing for court .
A judges job is to read , an expert should be an expert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expert witness's shouldn't be allowed to study before preparing for court.
A judges job is to read, an expert should be an expert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579667</id>
	<title>Probably a source of uncommon information ...</title>
	<author>MacTO</author>
	<datestamp>1246718040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are an unbelievable number of weapons out there, and it is unlikely that all of them are documented in mainstream or even specialist sources.  So where do you look for information on something that was taken off of the body of common thug.  You can do guesswork or rely upon hearsay, or you can look at non-traditional sources that document esoteric things.  The Wikipedia is probably one of the more reliable esoteric sources that you can use because it has a number of checks and balances built into it.</p><p>Used properly, the Wikipedia can also be used to discern valid from invalid information.  First of all, an officer can use their own background knowledge to discern what is obviously correct and what is obviously incorrect.  The Wikipedia also provides a history of edits and (at some level) who edited it.  If they do not provide a username, the police are in for a real treat because they (being the organisation, not necessarily the officer involved) do know what to do with information like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are an unbelievable number of weapons out there , and it is unlikely that all of them are documented in mainstream or even specialist sources .
So where do you look for information on something that was taken off of the body of common thug .
You can do guesswork or rely upon hearsay , or you can look at non-traditional sources that document esoteric things .
The Wikipedia is probably one of the more reliable esoteric sources that you can use because it has a number of checks and balances built into it.Used properly , the Wikipedia can also be used to discern valid from invalid information .
First of all , an officer can use their own background knowledge to discern what is obviously correct and what is obviously incorrect .
The Wikipedia also provides a history of edits and ( at some level ) who edited it .
If they do not provide a username , the police are in for a real treat because they ( being the organisation , not necessarily the officer involved ) do know what to do with information like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are an unbelievable number of weapons out there, and it is unlikely that all of them are documented in mainstream or even specialist sources.
So where do you look for information on something that was taken off of the body of common thug.
You can do guesswork or rely upon hearsay, or you can look at non-traditional sources that document esoteric things.
The Wikipedia is probably one of the more reliable esoteric sources that you can use because it has a number of checks and balances built into it.Used properly, the Wikipedia can also be used to discern valid from invalid information.
First of all, an officer can use their own background knowledge to discern what is obviously correct and what is obviously incorrect.
The Wikipedia also provides a history of edits and (at some level) who edited it.
If they do not provide a username, the police are in for a real treat because they (being the organisation, not necessarily the officer involved) do know what to do with information like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579431</id>
	<title>Re:All sources should be suspect</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246714740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear hear. Wikipedia has done a great job in getting us to think about issues such as where information comes from. E.g., it was Wikipedia that introduced me to the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel\_word" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Weasel words</a> [wikipedia.org], as a sneaky way to introduce unsupported claims. Now I see them all over the place, even relatively good sources such as the BBC. I've also seen them in places like museums, on the information boards they have.</p><p>People joke about using the "citation needed" tag, but I think it would demonstrate a point to take typical articles from sources usually considered reliable, and give them the Wikipedia standard of editing.</p><p>The sad thing is that this doesn't seem to rub off on people. Instead it's just used as a stick to beat Wikipedia with ("What's that? Wikipedia says the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church[*]? But you can't trust Wikipedia!"), whilst nonsense peddled by everyone else, from random people on forums, to the media, are swallowed down without question.</p><p>Indeed, people whine about "People believing information that then turns out to be from Wikipedia", as if that is somehow bad - I think it would be an interesting test to present people with information telling them it's from Wikipedia, then present the same information to another group, pretending its from a media article, and compare how likely they are to believe it.</p><p>[*] - Wikipedia incidentally <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic\_Church#cite\_note-Schreck158-14" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">provides a reference</a> [wikipedia.org], but that still doesn't stop people dismissing it with "But how can you know it's true? Anyone could've edited that article!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear .
Wikipedia has done a great job in getting us to think about issues such as where information comes from .
E.g. , it was Wikipedia that introduced me to the concept of Weasel words [ wikipedia.org ] , as a sneaky way to introduce unsupported claims .
Now I see them all over the place , even relatively good sources such as the BBC .
I 've also seen them in places like museums , on the information boards they have.People joke about using the " citation needed " tag , but I think it would demonstrate a point to take typical articles from sources usually considered reliable , and give them the Wikipedia standard of editing.The sad thing is that this does n't seem to rub off on people .
Instead it 's just used as a stick to beat Wikipedia with ( " What 's that ?
Wikipedia says the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church [ * ] ?
But you ca n't trust Wikipedia !
" ) , whilst nonsense peddled by everyone else , from random people on forums , to the media , are swallowed down without question.Indeed , people whine about " People believing information that then turns out to be from Wikipedia " , as if that is somehow bad - I think it would be an interesting test to present people with information telling them it 's from Wikipedia , then present the same information to another group , pretending its from a media article , and compare how likely they are to believe it .
[ * ] - Wikipedia incidentally provides a reference [ wikipedia.org ] , but that still does n't stop people dismissing it with " But how can you know it 's true ?
Anyone could 've edited that article !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear.
Wikipedia has done a great job in getting us to think about issues such as where information comes from.
E.g., it was Wikipedia that introduced me to the concept of Weasel words [wikipedia.org], as a sneaky way to introduce unsupported claims.
Now I see them all over the place, even relatively good sources such as the BBC.
I've also seen them in places like museums, on the information boards they have.People joke about using the "citation needed" tag, but I think it would demonstrate a point to take typical articles from sources usually considered reliable, and give them the Wikipedia standard of editing.The sad thing is that this doesn't seem to rub off on people.
Instead it's just used as a stick to beat Wikipedia with ("What's that?
Wikipedia says the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church[*]?
But you can't trust Wikipedia!
"), whilst nonsense peddled by everyone else, from random people on forums, to the media, are swallowed down without question.Indeed, people whine about "People believing information that then turns out to be from Wikipedia", as if that is somehow bad - I think it would be an interesting test to present people with information telling them it's from Wikipedia, then present the same information to another group, pretending its from a media article, and compare how likely they are to believe it.
[*] - Wikipedia incidentally provides a reference [wikipedia.org], but that still doesn't stop people dismissing it with "But how can you know it's true?
Anyone could've edited that article!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577731</id>
	<title>Re:They would be better off using snopes.com.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...completely made up..."</p><p>Is anyone surprised?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...completely made up... " Is anyone surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...completely made up..."Is anyone surprised?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577599</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28585601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28581907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28589381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28607643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28581375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28582949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0038243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28585369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579301
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28585601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28582949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28585369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578567
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28581375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28581907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28589381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28607643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28579175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28580269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28578521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0038243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0038243.28577859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
