According to Wikipedia...

Q

Q-tip

Poster Extraordinaire
Level 3
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
2,330
Did you know, that Kurtwood Smith was NOT the first choice for Red Forman on That 70's show? The original choice had other commitments, and could not agree to do it.

You guessed it, the first choice, as it should have been, is

CHUCK NORRIS!

I know, Wikipedia is not even close to truthful most of the time. I am not basing anything on this... I only ask the fans of that show this:

Could you imagine that show with Chuck Norris threatening to put his boot in someones ass all those times? How sweet would that have been!!??
 
Last edited:
I know, Wikipedia is not even close to truthful most of the time. I am not basing anything on this...
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources I have ever used. It is dead-on accurate. The people who complain about Wikipedia are academics because it makes their job almost useless at times so they invent propaganda about its accuracy. There have been funny stories about how professors tried to falsify information on Wikipedia delibrately to show to their class how unreliable it is and the next day when they access the page it turns out the error has been fixed.
 
My friend and I changed information on wikipedia one day and said Abe Lincoln sailed on the mayflower and that George Washington was our current president...it was on the site for about a half hour and then we received a message from wikipedia stating that they sourced us back to my high school and would contact administrators if we falsified more information...Needless to say we didn't change anything else!


And I dont think I would like Chuck Norris as the dad he Isn't old enough and the laid back dry humor that Kurtwood has is great for the part!
 
Actually, I couldn't see it after having the Kurtwood Smith playing Red Forman for the whole show.

The same could be said for Chuck Norris as Walker.

Once someone plays a part (and is good at it), you can't really see anyone else play that role as good. Sure, it would have been to hear his say that, but it would have the same feel.

Interesting fact though.
 
Are you sure you're talking about Wikipedia and not Uncyclopedia?
 
Kurtwood smith is a better actor then chuck Norris imo. Chuck is too overrated for me.
 
Cubey said:
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources I have ever used. It is dead-on accurate. The people who complain about Wikipedia are academics because it makes their job almost useless at times so they invent propaganda about its accuracy. There have been funny stories about how professors tried to falsify information on Wikipedia delibrately to show to their class how unreliable it is and the next day when they access the page it turns out the error has been fixed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it must always be dead on accurate if there is an option for people to edit any page at any time.
 
MiniNayNay said:
Yeah, it must always be dead on accurate if there is an option for people to edit any page at any time.
Click to expand...

That is what is surprising about it to most people. Anyone can edit and still more accurate than just about every other source.
 
People who do use Wikipedia most of the time put their sources in and you can get the source from that, then Wikipedia itself.
 
I am sure Britannica is more reliable than Wikipedia. This is because Britannica was very careful to select trustworthy people. However, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia, this is because Britannica is tiny compared to Wikipedia. Britannica is not even 1% the size of Wikipedia, not even 1% of 1% of its size. So compared to the information that is available Wikipedia takes the top spot. We are living in a time when information is so rapidly transmitting that the only right way of making an encyclopedia to keep up with this rapid pace is through a Wikipedia style.
 
Cubey said:
I am sure Britannica is more reliable than Wikipedia. This is because Britannica was very careful to select trustworthy people. However, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia, this is because Britannica is tiny compared to Wikipedia. Britannica is not even 1% the size of Wikipedia, not even 1% of 1% of its size. So compared to the information that is available Wikipedia takes the top spot. We are living in a time when information is so rapidly transmitting that the only right way of making an encyclopedia to keep up with this rapid pace is through a Wikipedia style.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is a good place to get a general background on a certain topic. However, if you are doing a paper or any other research on that topic, you need better sources than it. Wikipedia is accurate about a lot of things, but especially when you get very sciency or very technical, wikipedia quickly becomes wrong.
 
I trust Wikipedia 99% of the time. Topics you cover in class are generally just as well covered by Wikipedia which makes it extremely useful for studying.

The idea that wikipedia is riddled with inaccurate information is folly.

You just shouldn't cite wikipedia because wikipedia isn't proving the information, they're providing references. You can use the references they use AND cite wikipedia
 
chili dude96 said:
Wikipedia is a good place to get a general background on a certain topic. However, if you are doing a paper or any other research on that topic, you need better sources than it. Wikipedia is accurate about a lot of things, but especially when you get very sciency or very technical, wikipedia quickly becomes wrong.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about that. I use Wikipedia for mathematical work and I have never came across a single mistake on it. When it comes to science and mathematics Wikipedia is almost infallible. It is more likely to be wrong on non-scientific pages. In fact, according to Wikipedia itself when Nature compared the accuracy of scientific pages to Britannica it came close to its level of accuracy.
 
All Wiki discussions aside, I too love Kurtwood as Red. Because he did it so well. However, if it was Chuck Norris from the beginning, with a comedic role... IDK... It would have been interesting!
 
lol, tipper, ive missed you playing dods with us early but work comes first man, hope to see you around more often man, and hopefully soon bro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top