Mr. Lundahl Fails to Recognize What Reliable Sources of Information are. Young-Earth Creationists, especially Kent Hovind, are Unreliable. The References in Wikipedia Can be Useful. Otherwise, Wikipedia Must be Used with Caution.
Kevin R. Henke
September 23, 2022
In Henke (2022s), I warn that Wikipedia is often not a reliable source of information:
“Mr. Lundahl [in Lundahl (2022d)] still has no excuse for cutting, pasting, and promoting a Wikipedia article that is so poorly referenced. Certainly, Wikipedia articles may help a reader to better understand the general aspects of a topic and provide some useful references. I cited a Wikipedia article on James Randi in Henke (2022b), for example. However, Wikipedia articles should be used sparingly and avoided if peer-reviewed articles and textbooks are available on the topic. Mr. Lundahl should have much higher quality standards and not use webpages that are unfinished or poorly referenced. Lundahl (2022h) further states:
“Kevin R. Henke is a man who cannot read the wikipedia because he cannot get used to seeing a text which has no final edit - something which is true for all articles on wikipedia. This explains mountains on why people of his age and in his position refuse to accept wikipedia as references.” [my emphasis]
That’s correct, I don’t like or use webpages that are sloppily written and poorly referenced. References should pass quality standards before anyone uses them and the Wikipedia “Parallel Lives” webarticle obviously fails to do so. By the way, Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022d) never bothered to provide a link to the “Parallel Lives” webarticle, which is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Lives
The [citation needed] markers in the Wikipedia article should have been an immediate clue to Mr. Lundahl that the claims in this webarticle have not been verified and should not be trusted. Instead of just conveniently cutting and pasting a Wikipedia article, he should have consulted some legitimate history books or peer-reviewed articles. He could have started by evaluating the available references in the Wikipedia article rather than using the poorly referenced article itself. Then, he could have taken the time to write a far better summary in his own words.”
I should further state that I only used the James Randi information from Wikipedia because I heard him make the same comments in another forum.
Lundahl (2022q) again brings up the topic of Wikipedia and largely defends the website here. This is mostly a rebuttal to a YouTube video by J.J. McCullough, where Mr. McCullough states that he hates Wikipedia. However, contrary what Lundahl (2022q) says, I don’t favor those that hate Wikipedia. Wikipedia may provide very useful references to the peer-reviewed literature on various topics and, when verified, the summaries in Wikipedia articles may be quite good. The photographs and maps in Wikipedia are often excellent and, best of all, they are usually in the public domain. So, the quality of the webarticles in Wikipedia must be judged on a case-by-case basis. However, the “Parallel Lives” article cited by Lundahl (2022d) is poorly referenced and is totally unsuitable as a source. Mr. Lundahl should have known better than to cite it.
I have no interest in wading into the Wikipedia controversy between Mr. Lundahl and the video from Mr. McCullough. I should state that I avoid citing videos as references in my essays. Unless videos are strictly scripted, participants are usually talking “off the top of their heads” and there’s too much risk that they might misspeak or misremember important details. Furthermore, videos often do not list their sources.