Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Tanner Hall - wikipedia

profile picture
AB.Zee
Posts: 617 - Karma: 37
So I know you can't believe everything you see on the internet but on wikipedia it says Tanner Hall is 5'8, 150lbs

Just by him standing next to Dumont I figured he would be quite a bit taller than that....so does this mean Simon is like 5'2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_Hall
Dec 1 2009 4:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Kcin
Posts: 1845 - Karma: 58
simon dumont is 7'2' and is brothers with joe przybilla
Dec 1 2009 4:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Brenone
Posts: 4944 - Karma: 296
https://www.newschoolers.com/web/forums/readthread/thread_id/503459/

read this^^ and you will know why wikipedia is unreliable. actually kind of ironic that both these threads were created at the same time.

Dec 1 2009 4:16PM
0 0
profile picture
AB.Zee
Posts: 617 - Karma: 37
^ yes I am aware Wikipedia is unreliable...hence why I put that
If you looked at my post you would realize that isnt what I was asking...
Dec 1 2009 4:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Kirsakid
Posts: 1793 - Karma: 126
actually he is now 12ft tall and is 700lbs
Dec 1 2009 4:42PM
0 0
profile picture
sconniestyle
Posts: 3945 - Karma: 26

actually a study was done by nature (international weekly journal of science) and it found that the encyclopedia brittanica was nearly as unreliable as wikipedia. you could look at that and say "wikipedia isn't inaccurate" but it still is, just not much worse than other "reputable" sources.

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

from this article http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Dec 1 2009 4:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Brenone
Posts: 4944 - Karma: 296

actually you are wrong. he is now 13 1/2 feet tall and 885lbs

which means now that Simon is like 5'4"

Dec 1 2009 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
clive_bixby
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 499
haha it says 2000: light up an L
Dec 1 2009 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
AB.Zee
Posts: 617 - Karma: 37
oh...my bad haha

in that case...how long are his skis?
Dec 1 2009 4:51PM
0 0
profile picture
borskee
Posts: 796 - Karma: 127
hes like 5'4
i stood next to him last year at dew tour
im 5'6 and was taller than him
Dec 1 2009 4:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Aaaron.
Posts: 11817 - Karma: 903
remember when NS slammed danny kass on wikipedia?

Dec 1 2009 5:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Peach.
Posts: 3879 - Karma: 933
That was fun.
Dec 1 2009 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
*TURBONERD*
Posts: 15080 - Karma: 9,151
remember this, I do not. But do it again, we should.
Dec 1 2009 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Aaaron.
Posts: 11817 - Karma: 903
best: his favorite websites.
Dec 1 2009 5:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Candy
Posts: 1051 - Karma: 176
Sup Yoda.
Dec 1 2009 5:59PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)