yeah the current owner is thin n pendek one..hahaha..but for sure they're not brother.hehehehe..
JB New Section........ Part 4.....
- Thread starter normality78
- Start date
- Replies 8K
- Views 367K
-
See what others are reading now! Try Forums > Current Activity
yeah the current owner is thin n pendek one..hahaha..but for sure they're not brother.hehehehe..
Comments(5) | Add Yours Print E-Mail Share This Skype GlossaryIs Wikipedia Reliable?
The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider:
•Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.
•Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.
•Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.
•Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.
In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."
When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.
Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example
•There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.
•Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.
•The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.
These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.
---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------
I decided to spend a little time with a few Wikipedia pages today to see what I could discover about the accuracy, usability, and quality of the information available there. After all, the Wikipedia entry for a lot of search terms in Google, Yahoo, and other search engines is usually in the top 5 or so results. A lot of people are using Wikipedia: reading it… doing homework with it… writing research papers… or business presentations… etc. It'd be nice to know if that information is reliable or not.
For my little test I chose three Wikipedia pages:
•The Iraq War (a current, still-changing event)
The majority of the article contains a detailed time line of events from pre-war Iraq to the present. I actually read all 33 pages of that time line, too. Here are a few things I didn't like:
•The quality of the writing is not top-notch. In fact, obvious misspellings, missing words, and grammatical errors abound.
•Several pieces of the entry stated as fact have no reference link to show where the information came from. Luckily, most of them are flagged as missing a reference. But to the casual reader or student, that could easily be missed. And if it's wrong, there's no where to go to find out where the information came from.
•Several parts of the entry are written with an obviously biased perspective.
Overall, the entry is questionable. It looks complete and it covers a lot of information. But the validity and the accuracy of some of it is questionable. To the trained, objective eye that makes the validity of the entire entry questionable. If you can ignore the grammar, the post is written well enough that most people could follow along. But is it encyclopedia-level writing? Not at all. Would I use this entry to write a report, a presentation, or as a trusted source? No.
The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider:
•Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.
•Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.
•Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.
•Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.
In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."
When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.
Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example
•There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.
•Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.
•The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.
These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.
---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------
I decided to spend a little time with a few Wikipedia pages today to see what I could discover about the accuracy, usability, and quality of the information available there. After all, the Wikipedia entry for a lot of search terms in Google, Yahoo, and other search engines is usually in the top 5 or so results. A lot of people are using Wikipedia: reading it… doing homework with it… writing research papers… or business presentations… etc. It'd be nice to know if that information is reliable or not.
For my little test I chose three Wikipedia pages:
•The Iraq War (a current, still-changing event)
The majority of the article contains a detailed time line of events from pre-war Iraq to the present. I actually read all 33 pages of that time line, too. Here are a few things I didn't like:
•The quality of the writing is not top-notch. In fact, obvious misspellings, missing words, and grammatical errors abound.
•Several pieces of the entry stated as fact have no reference link to show where the information came from. Luckily, most of them are flagged as missing a reference. But to the casual reader or student, that could easily be missed. And if it's wrong, there's no where to go to find out where the information came from.
•Several parts of the entry are written with an obviously biased perspective.
Overall, the entry is questionable. It looks complete and it covers a lot of information. But the validity and the accuracy of some of it is questionable. To the trained, objective eye that makes the validity of the entire entry questionable. If you can ignore the grammar, the post is written well enough that most people could follow along. But is it encyclopedia-level writing? Not at all. Would I use this entry to write a report, a presentation, or as a trusted source? No.
Conclusions and Thoughts
Not surprisingly, the entry on the Iraq War was larger, more error prone, and less trustworthy. In fact, you'll notice that trend throughout Wikipedia: people, places, things, and events that generate a lot of emotional reactions from people seem to have the most attention. And that's not always a good thing. People are much more likely to let their emotional reaction to, say, a war spill out into Wikipedia than they are to let their feelings for soft drinks cloud their writing.
This is exactly why people using Wikipedia as a resource must do so with a grain of salt. Yes, it can be a good resource. Yes, there are pages on just about everything there. And yes, just about everyone has used Wikipedia at some point.
But it is corruptible and it is fallible. Any encyclopedia is, but Wikipedia is much more susceptible to inaccuracy and bias than traditional, printed encyclopedias. Traditional encyclopedias pay people to research and verify everything before it gets printed. Wikipedia relies on readers of the site to flag, discuss, and possibly modify inaccurate information. Which system do you think returns the more accurate information?
Am I saying you shouldn't use Wikipedia? No, of course not. Like I said, it's a good resource. But do your homework. Check the source of your Wikipedia information. Verify facts with other sources. And if you see errors, bias, or other inaccuracies on Wikipedia, lend the service a hand and offer your fixes.
That's how the service grows and gets better. And it didn't become the popular destination that it is for nothing.
---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------
Why Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Source for Facts
July 16, 2008 by Jim Green Jim Green Published Content: 2 Total Views: 1,925 Fans: 0 View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites Font SizePost a comment Share More topicsTranslate | Wikipedia | Encyclopedia | Reliable
I will presume that most people are familiar with Wikipedia. It describes itself as "an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which I translate to mean that anyone can cite one's self as an authority on any and everything.
The co-founder, Jimmy Wales, describes Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language." Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it".
Clearly Wikipedia and it's plethora of contributors are sincere and well-meaning, however characterizing all contibuted information as factual is unrealistic and in many cases patently false. Perhaps it would be more apt for Mr. Wales to describe Wikipedia as a great encyclopedia of an accumulation of biased opinions. For that, it is most definitely of the highest quality.
A good example of how Wikipedia is misused quite often appears on LiveLeak, a website where you will find videos on politics, religion and other controversial and thought provoking topics. Many of the videos on one or more of those subjects will from time to time elicit a counter-comment that is rife with allegations and/or accusations that has been referenced from content found on Wikipedia. When further researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated.
Considering that anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information.
Not surprisingly, the entry on the Iraq War was larger, more error prone, and less trustworthy. In fact, you'll notice that trend throughout Wikipedia: people, places, things, and events that generate a lot of emotional reactions from people seem to have the most attention. And that's not always a good thing. People are much more likely to let their emotional reaction to, say, a war spill out into Wikipedia than they are to let their feelings for soft drinks cloud their writing.
This is exactly why people using Wikipedia as a resource must do so with a grain of salt. Yes, it can be a good resource. Yes, there are pages on just about everything there. And yes, just about everyone has used Wikipedia at some point.
But it is corruptible and it is fallible. Any encyclopedia is, but Wikipedia is much more susceptible to inaccuracy and bias than traditional, printed encyclopedias. Traditional encyclopedias pay people to research and verify everything before it gets printed. Wikipedia relies on readers of the site to flag, discuss, and possibly modify inaccurate information. Which system do you think returns the more accurate information?
Am I saying you shouldn't use Wikipedia? No, of course not. Like I said, it's a good resource. But do your homework. Check the source of your Wikipedia information. Verify facts with other sources. And if you see errors, bias, or other inaccuracies on Wikipedia, lend the service a hand and offer your fixes.
That's how the service grows and gets better. And it didn't become the popular destination that it is for nothing.
---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------
Why Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Source for Facts
July 16, 2008 by Jim Green Jim Green Published Content: 2 Total Views: 1,925 Fans: 0 View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites Font SizePost a comment Share More topicsTranslate | Wikipedia | Encyclopedia | Reliable
I will presume that most people are familiar with Wikipedia. It describes itself as "an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which I translate to mean that anyone can cite one's self as an authority on any and everything.
The co-founder, Jimmy Wales, describes Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language." Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it".
Clearly Wikipedia and it's plethora of contributors are sincere and well-meaning, however characterizing all contibuted information as factual is unrealistic and in many cases patently false. Perhaps it would be more apt for Mr. Wales to describe Wikipedia as a great encyclopedia of an accumulation of biased opinions. For that, it is most definitely of the highest quality.
A good example of how Wikipedia is misused quite often appears on LiveLeak, a website where you will find videos on politics, religion and other controversial and thought provoking topics. Many of the videos on one or more of those subjects will from time to time elicit a counter-comment that is rife with allegations and/or accusations that has been referenced from content found on Wikipedia. When further researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated.
Considering that anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information.
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution III
General specifications:
- Country of origin: Japan
- Years of production: 1995 - 1996
- Numbers built: 5000
- Body design: N/A
- Drive: Permanent all wheel drive
- Frame: CE9A
Engine:
- Engine: 4G63 Straight 4
- Engine Location: Front , transversely mounted
- Displacement: 1.997 liter / 121.9 cu in
- Bore x Stroke: 85.0 x 88.0
- Compression Ratio: 8.8:1
- Valvetrain: 4 valves / cylinder, DOHC
- Fuel feed: Multi-point Electronic Injection ECI-MULTI
- Octane Fuel: 97 or higher. Unleaded
- Fuel Tank Capacity: 48L
- Aspiration: TDO5-16G6-7 Turbo
Performance figures:
- Power: 266 bhp / 198 KW @ 6250 rpm
- Torque: 309 nm / 228 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
- BHP/Liter: 133 bhp / liter
- Power to weight ratio: 0.21 bhp / kg
- Top Speed: 239 km/h / 149 mph
- 0-60 mph Acceleration: 4.9 s
Transmission:
- Gearbox: 5 speed Manual
- Gear Ratio 1: 2.750
- Gear Ratio 2: 1.684
- Gear Ratio 3: 1.160
- Gear Ratio 4: 0.862
- Gear Ratio 5: 0.617
- Reverse: 3.156
- Final Gear: 5.358
Steering:
- Type: Rack & pinion. Power assisted
Suspension:
- Front: McPherson strut with inverted type shock absorbers
- Rear: Multi-link with stabiliser bar; aluminium suspensions arms
Brakes:
- Front: 4-pot calipper 15" Ventilated Disc
- Rear: 2-pot calipper 15" Ventilated Disc
- Diameter: 300mm
Dimensions & Weight:
- Length: 4310 mm
- Width: 1695 mm
- Height: 1420 mm
- Wheelbase: 2510 mm
- Front Track: 1465 mm
- Rear Track: 1470 mm
- Min. Height: 1400 mm
- No. of Passengers: 5
- Weight: 1260 kilo / 2777.8 lbs
---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------
engine 4G63 Inline-4
position Front Transverse
aspiration Turbocharged
valvetrain DOHC 4 Valves / Cyl
fuel feed ECI Multiport Injection
displacement 1997 cc / 121.9 in³
bore 85 mm / 3.35 in
stroke 88 mm / 3.46 in
power 201.3 kw / 270 bhp @ 6000 rpm
---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------
Lancer Evolution Specs: EVO 3/EVO III
Engine: 1997cc
Power: 270PS @ 6250rpm
Torque: 228lbs/ft @ 3000rpm
Weight: 1260kg (RS: 1170kg)
Top Speed: 149mph
0-60 mph: 4.9 seconds
General specifications:
- Country of origin: Japan
- Years of production: 1995 - 1996
- Numbers built: 5000
- Body design: N/A
- Drive: Permanent all wheel drive
- Frame: CE9A
Engine:
- Engine: 4G63 Straight 4
- Engine Location: Front , transversely mounted
- Displacement: 1.997 liter / 121.9 cu in
- Bore x Stroke: 85.0 x 88.0
- Compression Ratio: 8.8:1
- Valvetrain: 4 valves / cylinder, DOHC
- Fuel feed: Multi-point Electronic Injection ECI-MULTI
- Octane Fuel: 97 or higher. Unleaded
- Fuel Tank Capacity: 48L
- Aspiration: TDO5-16G6-7 Turbo
Performance figures:
- Power: 266 bhp / 198 KW @ 6250 rpm
- Torque: 309 nm / 228 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
- BHP/Liter: 133 bhp / liter
- Power to weight ratio: 0.21 bhp / kg
- Top Speed: 239 km/h / 149 mph
- 0-60 mph Acceleration: 4.9 s
Transmission:
- Gearbox: 5 speed Manual
- Gear Ratio 1: 2.750
- Gear Ratio 2: 1.684
- Gear Ratio 3: 1.160
- Gear Ratio 4: 0.862
- Gear Ratio 5: 0.617
- Reverse: 3.156
- Final Gear: 5.358
Steering:
- Type: Rack & pinion. Power assisted
Suspension:
- Front: McPherson strut with inverted type shock absorbers
- Rear: Multi-link with stabiliser bar; aluminium suspensions arms
Brakes:
- Front: 4-pot calipper 15" Ventilated Disc
- Rear: 2-pot calipper 15" Ventilated Disc
- Diameter: 300mm
Dimensions & Weight:
- Length: 4310 mm
- Width: 1695 mm
- Height: 1420 mm
- Wheelbase: 2510 mm
- Front Track: 1465 mm
- Rear Track: 1470 mm
- Min. Height: 1400 mm
- No. of Passengers: 5
- Weight: 1260 kilo / 2777.8 lbs
---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------
engine 4G63 Inline-4
position Front Transverse
aspiration Turbocharged
valvetrain DOHC 4 Valves / Cyl
fuel feed ECI Multiport Injection
displacement 1997 cc / 121.9 in³
bore 85 mm / 3.35 in
stroke 88 mm / 3.46 in
power 201.3 kw / 270 bhp @ 6000 rpm
---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------
Lancer Evolution Specs: EVO 3/EVO III
Engine: 1997cc
Power: 270PS @ 6250rpm
Torque: 228lbs/ft @ 3000rpm
Weight: 1260kg (RS: 1170kg)
Top Speed: 149mph
0-60 mph: 4.9 seconds
Keon,
Evo3 famous for having higher compression then Evo1 and Evo2. So 8.8:1 comp ratio confirm is wrong
Evo3 famous for having higher compression then Evo1 and Evo2. So 8.8:1 comp ratio confirm is wrong
fucking shit!!!
this is getting out of hands man!!!
keon....
where u get the info ar???
macam not very correct ler....
evo3 runnin twin pot front, single pot rear....
somemore 15" disc?? then how to clear 15" rims wor???
this is getting out of hands man!!!
keon....
where u get the info ar???
macam not very correct ler....
evo3 runnin twin pot front, single pot rear....
somemore 15" disc?? then how to clear 15" rims wor???
1995 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution III See all Mitsubishi models
Bore × stroke 85.00 mm × 88.00 mm
3.35 in × 3.46 in
Cylinders S-4
Displacement 2 litre
1997 cc
(121.864 cu in)
Type DOHC
Key: SOHCSingle overhead camshaftDOHCDouble overhead camshaftOHVOverhead valvesTSTwo strokeSVSide valvesSlSleeve valvesoiseOverhead inlet side exhaustSee more...
4 valves per cylinder
16 valves in total
Construction
Sump
Compression ratio 9.00:1
Fuel system EFi
Maximum power 269.7 PS (266.0 bhp) (198.4 kW)
@ 6250 rpm
Specific output 133.2 bhp/litre
2.18 bhp/cu in
Maximum torque 309.0 Nm (228 ft·lb) (31.5 kgm)
@ 3000 rpm
bmep 1944.4 kPa (282 psi)
Specific torque 154.73 Nm/litre
Maximum rpm
Manufacturer Mitsubishi
Code
Main bearings
Coolant Water
Bore/stroke ratio 0.97
Unitary capacity 499.25 cc/cylinder
Aspiration Turbo
Compressor type Type TD05H-16G6-7 turbo
Intercooler Y
Bore × stroke 85.00 mm × 88.00 mm
3.35 in × 3.46 in
Cylinders S-4
Displacement 2 litre
1997 cc
(121.864 cu in)
Type DOHC
Key: SOHCSingle overhead camshaftDOHCDouble overhead camshaftOHVOverhead valvesTSTwo strokeSVSide valvesSlSleeve valvesoiseOverhead inlet side exhaustSee more...
4 valves per cylinder
16 valves in total
Construction
Sump
Compression ratio 9.00:1
Fuel system EFi
Maximum power 269.7 PS (266.0 bhp) (198.4 kW)
@ 6250 rpm
Specific output 133.2 bhp/litre
2.18 bhp/cu in
Maximum torque 309.0 Nm (228 ft·lb) (31.5 kgm)
@ 3000 rpm
bmep 1944.4 kPa (282 psi)
Specific torque 154.73 Nm/litre
Maximum rpm
Manufacturer Mitsubishi
Code
Main bearings
Coolant Water
Bore/stroke ratio 0.97
Unitary capacity 499.25 cc/cylinder
Aspiration Turbo
Compressor type Type TD05H-16G6-7 turbo
Intercooler Y
whahahaha... i was about to say also. 4pot???? If so, sure it can fetch 2k plus
I just simply pull off any website i can find.
As you all can see, all websites have different power figures.
So, any websites that we visit to get info might not be correct. Not necessary wikipedia.
---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------
Why are cars rated as 280hp in Japan but 276hp in the U.K.?
They use Metric horsepower(DIN/PS) as above, converted to imperial/UK/mechanical horsepower it's 276.17 which gets rounded to 276hp.
As you all can see, all websites have different power figures.
So, any websites that we visit to get info might not be correct. Not necessary wikipedia.
---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------
Why are cars rated as 280hp in Japan but 276hp in the U.K.?
They use Metric horsepower(DIN/PS) as above, converted to imperial/UK/mechanical horsepower it's 276.17 which gets rounded to 276hp.
tats why... u cant pull out from wiki then means you confirm correct as i said 1st foremost, where does wiki infor come from?
Why 280hp? coz that was the year 1990 when japan had the "gentlemen" agreement by JAIA with car manufacturer. It is due to for saftey (rumours saying that year, accident involve high hp car spike greatly) and all cars should be speed limited to 180kmh. Its also to avoid those car manufacturer to produce insane hp car to right each other. Thats why all those RB and JZ all publish at 280hp
---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------
again, horsepower sell... so every car maker will claimed as high as they could. Whereas some underdeclare cc to avoid taxes
---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------
so conclude, 250hp for evo3... WRONG. PERIOD.
Why 280hp? coz that was the year 1990 when japan had the "gentlemen" agreement by JAIA with car manufacturer. It is due to for saftey (rumours saying that year, accident involve high hp car spike greatly) and all cars should be speed limited to 180kmh. Its also to avoid those car manufacturer to produce insane hp car to right each other. Thats why all those RB and JZ all publish at 280hp
---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------
again, horsepower sell... so every car maker will claimed as high as they could. Whereas some underdeclare cc to avoid taxes
---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------
so conclude, 250hp for evo3... WRONG. PERIOD.
knn...take a stock e3 n go dyno la!!!
PERIOD!!!
PERIOD!!!
how do u plan to get a fresh evo3 engine go dyno? then how u factor as accurate? temp/humid tranny lost, tire pressure, SAE factor?
knn!!!
fucking shit!!!
meaning nth is accurate in this world la???
wat oso cannot trust!!!!
fucking shit!!!
die die die!!!!
fucking shit!!!
meaning nth is accurate in this world la???
wat oso cannot trust!!!!
fucking shit!!!
die die die!!!!
whahahah.. its fun to see calvin crap out... priceless....
u fucking sick old man!!!
ash...
dat's very comforting....
but who cares.....
keon...
i just now around 8pm oni saw ur msg in fb....
dun wanna call him so late la....
i oso not very close wif him de....
u call him again tml la...
no need paiseh wan ma....
dat's very comforting....
but who cares.....
keon...
i just now around 8pm oni saw ur msg in fb....
dun wanna call him so late la....
i oso not very close wif him de....
u call him again tml la...
no need paiseh wan ma....
Similar threads
The Marketplace Latest
-
Honda CITY 1.5 E (A)
- Started by PIstonHeads
- Cars for sale
Posts refresh every 5 minutes
Recent Posts
Search
Enjoying Zerotohundred?
Log-in for an ad-less experience