Tigranes Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Blanket dismissal of wikipedia is pretty much a huge chunk of nonsense. You know, I wonder if there is any mechanism now for, say, Thanksgiving to be described and acted on in such a way that it contributes towards a positive understanding and action regarding the original wrongs - I very much doubt it. I also think that by now the life of thanksgiving as a social thing has almost completely shifted beyond the original kernel as to make it 'harmless'. Sometimes you really need to stop and think hang on, is this seemingly innocent stuff actually doing bad things to us now, but I have yet to see anytihng of the sort for thanksgiving. But then, I've only attended one American thanksgiving where it's more prevalent, and the Korean / East Asian equivalent comes from very different roots, so who knows? Let's Play: Icewind Dale Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Icewind Dale II Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Divinity II (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG1 (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG2 (In Progress)
Deadly_Nightshade Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Blanket dismissal of wikipedia is pretty much a huge chunk of nonsense. That depends on how and where Wikipedia is used. In forum debates such as this one Wiki is fine, in formal papers - not so much. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Purkake Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Blanket dismissal of wikipedia is pretty much a huge chunk of nonsense. That depends on how and where Wikipedia is used. In forum debates such as this one Wiki is fine, in formal papers - not so much. *Looks around* Yup, still in a forum debate... Obviously academic papers etc. are held to a higher standard.
Aristes Posted December 2, 2009 Author Posted December 2, 2009 Well, I know you guys will have a lot of fun when I start my Merry Xmas thread. hehe Seriously, though, long debates or not, it's a way to share holidays around this joint. ...And I don't mind a bit of heat in these threads. It helps cook the feast. I just don't want them to become a source of real animosity in our little slice of online heaven. As for wiki? I think it's just the most convenient thing to use. I mean, we could actually cite some of the online refereed journals and whatnot, but that would be a pain and would require an account to read most of the ones with which I'm familiar. So, since wiki tends to be pretty good about sources and the like, it seems perfectly legit.
Walsingham Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 1. I've seen TV shows on the BBC which didn't exactly say druids ritually murdered people, but they did show human remains from the pre-Roman period with some rather odd CSI-tastic injuries on them. All buried differently away from normal burial areas. 2. I'd forgotten about Harvest Festival! We used to do that in my village when I was a kid! People would stack corn, and bake huge loaves of bread, and stack up tins of food and jars of jam and whatnot/ Would be given to the poor of the parish. Takes me back... "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
TheHarlequin Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Blanket dismissal of wikipedia is pretty much a huge chunk of nonsense. Wikipedia is great for pop culture info, pc games and music/movie info. Any topic of substance is suspect. Especially ones of hot button topics like religion, science or history. Edit wars, bias, and ignorant folks editing articles they have no idea about are rampant. I have seen such myself more then once. Wikipedia is all about the mob collective, the facts/truth come second. World of Darkness News http://www.wodnews.net --- "I cannot profess to be a theologian; but it seems to me that Christians who believe in a super human Satan have got themselves into a logical impasse with regard to their own religion. For either God can not prevent the mischief of Satan, in which case he is not omnipotent; or else He could do so if he wished, but will not, in which case He is not benevolent. Fortunately, being a pagan witch, I am not called upon to solve this problem." - Doreen Valiente
TheHarlequin Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Nothing to see here, move along. Indeed I am just a big meanie. World of Darkness News http://www.wodnews.net --- "I cannot profess to be a theologian; but it seems to me that Christians who believe in a super human Satan have got themselves into a logical impasse with regard to their own religion. For either God can not prevent the mischief of Satan, in which case he is not omnipotent; or else He could do so if he wished, but will not, in which case He is not benevolent. Fortunately, being a pagan witch, I am not called upon to solve this problem." - Doreen Valiente
Walsingham Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 The sources, you can check them. Man has a point. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Hurlshort Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Blanket dismissal of wikipedia is pretty much a huge chunk of nonsense. Wikipedia is great for pop culture info, pc games and music/movie info. Any topic of substance is suspect. Especially ones of hot button topics like religion, science or history. Edit wars, bias, and ignorant folks editing articles they have no idea about are rampant. I have seen such myself more then once. Wikipedia is all about the mob collective, the facts/truth come second. I went to an education conference this summer and there was an entire seminar devoted to using wikipedia in the classroom. Of course it isn't a good primary source, that is pretty much common sense, but as a secondary source and a research platform, it is pretty much unsurpassed. There are inaccuracies everywhere, not just in wikipedia. My textbooks contradict themselves, my encyclopedias miss entire chunks of content. The only way to get close to a clear picture is to examine as many sources as possible, and wikipedia is a great starting place for that.
Walsingham Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 I think wiki serves an excellent role as starting point on most subjects. Andit's rarely impenatrable, even when it's insane. That then gives leads on where to go next. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
TheHarlequin Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 The sources, you can check them. Man has a point. Indeed I will grant him that. I still stand by my view of wikipedia as a whole however. Great to get a cliff notes version of the eps of mad men. Suspect when dealing with history or sciences. World of Darkness News http://www.wodnews.net --- "I cannot profess to be a theologian; but it seems to me that Christians who believe in a super human Satan have got themselves into a logical impasse with regard to their own religion. For either God can not prevent the mischief of Satan, in which case he is not omnipotent; or else He could do so if he wished, but will not, in which case He is not benevolent. Fortunately, being a pagan witch, I am not called upon to solve this problem." - Doreen Valiente
TheHarlequin Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 Blanket dismissal of wikipedia is pretty much a huge chunk of nonsense. Wikipedia is great for pop culture info, pc games and music/movie info. Any topic of substance is suspect. Especially ones of hot button topics like religion, science or history. Edit wars, bias, and ignorant folks editing articles they have no idea about are rampant. I have seen such myself more then once. Wikipedia is all about the mob collective, the facts/truth come second. I went to an education conference this summer and there was an entire seminar devoted to using wikipedia in the classroom. Of course it isn't a good primary source, that is pretty much common sense, but as a secondary source and a research platform, it is pretty much unsurpassed. There are inaccuracies everywhere, not just in wikipedia. My textbooks contradict themselves, my encyclopedias miss entire chunks of content. The only way to get close to a clear picture is to examine as many sources as possible, and wikipedia is a great starting place for that. Living in the center of college-ville I don't know any of the ivy leagues or other large collages that allow you to use wikipedia as a source. At least the students/profs I know. and last stats I saw of wikipedia vs its printed brethern (about a yr ago), pedia had on average x2 as many inaccurices per article. World of Darkness News http://www.wodnews.net --- "I cannot profess to be a theologian; but it seems to me that Christians who believe in a super human Satan have got themselves into a logical impasse with regard to their own religion. For either God can not prevent the mischief of Satan, in which case he is not omnipotent; or else He could do so if he wished, but will not, in which case He is not benevolent. Fortunately, being a pagan witch, I am not called upon to solve this problem." - Doreen Valiente
Hurlshort Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 That's why I referred to it as a 'research platform'. I would not use an encyclopedia or wikipedia in a college level course as a source myself. As for wikipedia having twice the errors, there is a trade off there. Wikipedia tends to be more current (particularly if you are relying on hard bound encyclopedia's) and it covers a bigger spectrum of subjects in greater detail.
TheHarlequin Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 But if its peppered with more errors then that defeats that benefit IMO. *shrugs* You may get more depth but if you get more errors as well it seems to be a wash to me and no advantage. Remind me what the purpose is again of reading a error plauged pedia? So you get more info that erroronus. Seems counter productive to me and illogical. More <> better if its riddeled with bias and errors as wikipedia is. World of Darkness News http://www.wodnews.net --- "I cannot profess to be a theologian; but it seems to me that Christians who believe in a super human Satan have got themselves into a logical impasse with regard to their own religion. For either God can not prevent the mischief of Satan, in which case he is not omnipotent; or else He could do so if he wished, but will not, in which case He is not benevolent. Fortunately, being a pagan witch, I am not called upon to solve this problem." - Doreen Valiente
Trenitay Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 It's always better to get a clearer view through multiple sources. Wikipedia may have errors, but that doesn't make it "error plagued", anymore than you or I are. Everything we read has some errors, if you can't distinguish between fact and fiction you probably shouldn't read anything. Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.
Hurlshort Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 I think we would need a sample size to really figure out if it is 'peppered' with errors. As you said, it has twice the errors of an encyclopedia set. Now if an encyclopedia has 50 error per entry then of course 100 errors per entry in wiki is terrible. But if it is more reasonable, like 1 or two errors in the encyclopedia and 2-4 errors per wiki entry, then that is less 'peppery' Frankly I'd be surprised if it was that high. It is probably more like 1 error per 5 entries in the encyclopedia.
TheHarlequin Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) I think we would need a sample size to really figure out if it is 'peppered' with errors. As you said, it has twice the errors of an encyclopedia set. Now if an encyclopedia has 50 error per entry then of course 100 errors per entry in wiki is terrible. But if it is more reasonable, like 1 or two errors in the encyclopedia and 2-4 errors per wiki entry, then that is less 'peppery' Frankly I'd be surprised if it was that high. It is probably more like 1 error per 5 entries in the encyclopedia. In the comparison I read the written pedia had, on average, 2 errors per article, wikipedia 4. However articles that generate strong emotion around the technical savvy that use wikipedia have much higher error rate. The specific example they gave was the wikipeda bill gates entry which if I recall they cited almost 20 errors due to bias and ongoing edit wars. You are grossly oblivious to the issues with wikipedia of you think they only have 1 error per 5 articles. Edited December 4, 2009 by TheHarlequin World of Darkness News http://www.wodnews.net --- "I cannot profess to be a theologian; but it seems to me that Christians who believe in a super human Satan have got themselves into a logical impasse with regard to their own religion. For either God can not prevent the mischief of Satan, in which case he is not omnipotent; or else He could do so if he wished, but will not, in which case He is not benevolent. Fortunately, being a pagan witch, I am not called upon to solve this problem." - Doreen Valiente
Hurlshort Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 Oddly enough, grossly oblivious is how I would describe your reading comprehension.
Gorth Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 Thanks to contributors, well wishers, curious onlookers, etc. but we seem to have left thanksgiving. Maybe we will grow up enough some day to be able to wish each other well without this deep seated need to stomp on other peoples happiness? Yeah, naive, I know. Feel free to create a wiki thread “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Recommended Posts