BLUE TONGUE SKINKS

Looked up Blue Tongued Skinks on Wikipedia and found the following:

"Some of the items that will help your lizard to survive for longer is a heat rock, that plugs into a power point. That can be left on all the time where as the heat lamp must be turned off at night."

Makes me wonder how reliable any of that other info is...

kaijubait wrote:Looked up Blue Tongued Skinks on Wikipedia and found the following:

"Some of the items that will help your lizard to survive for longer is a heat rock, that plugs into a power point. That can be left on all the time where as the heat lamp must be turned off at night."

Makes me wonder how reliable any of that other info is...

survive longer. What a moron.

Is somebody going to edit it?

Marie wrote:Is somebody going to edit it?

I got rid of the major stuff. I didn't have a chance to read it thoroughly.

What kid is writing this crap?

Some of the major problems and dangers for lizards is other pets such as the family cat or dog, and if the lizard is small enough even birds, the tank should be cleaned at least once a week to keep your lizard healthy. What you need to look out for when buying a lizard of finding one is mites. These annoying little bugs live under the scales of the lizard, usually around the lizards front legs, they can also be found in the ears. These bugs are fairly small and look a bit like black sprinkles with legs. They move quite fast, but a daily bath for about five minutes every day for a month should cure them.

Ugh, looks like some kid edited nearly the whole thing...looks like you don't even have to be registered to edit.

And this is the reason that the prof.'s dont allow you to use wikipedia as a source in a paper.

reptileking wrote:And this is the reason that the prof.'s dont allow you to use wikipedia as a source in a paper.

Encyclopedia brittanica has 3 errors for every 4 on wikipedia.

The person who wrote that should be slapped with the bluey bible until some of the knowledge is embedded in their head! ( literally and metaphorically speaking)

reptileking wrote:And this is the reason that the prof.'s dont allow you to use wikipedia as a source in a paper.

Indeed. Much more reliable to check the sources of the wikipedia article. If there aren't any, you never know. But, for some stuff, it is very accurate.

Chase wrote:The person who wrote that should be slapped with the bluey bible until some of the knowledge is embedded in their head! ( literally and metaphorically speaking)

Yeah, for some things it's excellent.
(For example, this comprehensive and detailed page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome )

For others it's got nothing, only minimal information, or it's downright inaccurate or biased. But that's what you get with something open to modification by everybody. You can get some very inaccurate things in books, too, and that's a lot more permanent.

The one thing I've done editing the Wikipedia references is putting a link to BTS.net. It sticks to the T. sp.sp. page but not always the main one... probably the kid editing the whole thing is offended by us.

Wikipedia is pretty much a waste of time. It's entertaining, however.

KW

Chase wrote:The person who wrote that should be slapped with the bluey bible until some of the knowledge is embedded in their head! ( literally and metaphorically speaking)

Knowledge by osmosis, eh?

Tyzo wrote:

Chase wrote:The person who wrote that should be slapped with the bluey bible until some of the knowledge is embedded in their head! ( literally and metaphorically speaking)

Knowledge by osmosis, eh?

Call it what you like... Vengeance has many names.

KW

KyleWeiss wrote:The one thing I've done editing the Wikipedia references is putting a link to BTS.net. It sticks to the T. sp.sp. page but not always the main one... probably the kid editing the whole thing is offended by us.

Wikipedia is pretty much a waste of time. It's entertaining, however.

KW

Could be an even more embarrassed, so say knowledgeable adult

It could be... and what a sad realization to our state of affairs...

KW

Wikipedia is good because it is open source and therefore allows people to read the crap and submit more accurate information. The exchange of information is always thwart with errors but it beats nothing at all.

We have always relied on information printed or otherwise - and it needs to be cited. Cited from what some-one else said. (?) Unless you can use primary sources it will be filled with bias and interpretation and even the most cited documents and referenced facilities in the world are full of mistakes and bigger mistakes. I think this leads to discussion, investigation and eventually, more exchange of ideas and knowledge.

How can you disgard a resource like that when we have the media and "E-oline" to rely on otherwise.

I admit it's full of rubbish but I reckon it's a great thing as long as people treat their sources - whether history books or encyclopedias with adequate discretion and are always mindful of human error.

Hope the bluey thingi has been fixed. And with that though in mind, what reference are you going to cite ...... "my Northern liked.....". It's a tricky situation.

Tyzo wrote:

Chase wrote:The person who wrote that should be slapped with the bluey bible until some of the knowledge is embedded in their head! ( literally and metaphorically speaking)

Knowledge by osmosis, eh?

Technically it'd be diffusion, but hey, who cares?