Since when have I been an 'expert'?

Hi people

I feel kinda strange by pretending to be an expert on something. If anything, I'm just a sponge that absorbs a whole heap of info on everything from movie lines to how to write sentences. Actually, the only thing I would consider that I know a lot about would be random music trivia - but you can't type that into wikipedia expecting a result...I should know - I've tried.

And so now I'm trying to rack my brain for something that I know... and it's not working.

Ok I guess I could say that I've watched Toy Story waaaay too many times coz of my little brother's fasination with it when he was growing up; so much so that I can tell you the first scene word-for-word, sound effects included. I'm a sad, strange little person...

So how does wikipedia's article compare to my somewhat limited knowledge about it.

The article is really long - that surprised me at first but then I realised that someone has given a blow-by-blow acount of the entire movie. I can confidently say that the plot is correct. And from what I know, the rest of the info presented is accurate too - but don't quote me on that.

I think if you haven't seen the movie and you read the article you'd know pretty much everything plus more. It also has a trivia section for people like me who like to know the random details so I'm happy.

If this article is biased I'd like to meet the person who has it in for Disney; either that or they're employed by good ol' Walt. I think this article was written by someone who had waaay too much time on their hands and could probably quote the whole movie. The whole article is fairly positive and it's not like there's a section completely bagging out Buzz and Woody.

My second topic for investigation is the game of softball

I've played and coached a lot of softball so I guess I know a bit about the rules, equipment and stuff like that.


From what I've read, the Wikipedia article actually covers pretty much everything. It even clarifies specific terms for the non-softballer like "fouls" "strikeout" "infield".

It gives a pretty good explanation of the general terms and the rules and equipment so I'd have to say that I think it's fairly accurate.

It covers the basics and everything you'd need to know before putting on a helmet and attempting to hit a moving ball that's not soft at all (or watching someone else do it). At the same time it's kinda broadened what I know about the sport.


The whole tone is objective so there is no obvious bias. I think it is better structured than the Toy Story article and more in depth info.

It complies with the wikipedia guidelines from what I've read of them.

So there you go. You now know that I've seen Toy Story waay too many times and play softball and that wikipedia is pretty accurate on these topics. By the way - if you ever have to do an essay on the Cochabamba Water Crisis in Bolivia - use wikipedia.

Cya =)