BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:00 AM

propoganda, i mean education, so that eventually no-one relies on any one source for their information (even their own 'reliable' newspaper.)   And to discourage a tendency for people to think of only one source, even the internet as an example, as a satisfactory approach to knowledge.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:20 AM

I can see how that should apply to news sources, but reference material should have some level of integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:34 AM

no, Greg F, Wikipedia is NOT a 'blog'. A blog is one persons opinion...

Yup, and BlogiPedia is also one person's opinion (or one entity's opinion- like the Republican National Committee, for example) at a time- and that opinion changes with every so-called "revision"- an ever changing kaleidoscope of hogwash.


'scuse me, I have to go now & watch "Survivor"...

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 10:13 AM

Let us keep in mind that August is a slow news month. It may be sad that people with money and reputation to lose feel free to mess with Wikipedia, but it's not a big surprise and it's not earthshaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:05 AM

Q: NYT's On Wiki. Several listed link articles at the Washington Post, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:08 PM

rigin yes, reference works do have a level of integrity, tho' some more than others. And most reference work compilers say that there will be errors in their productions.

e.g. Grove is THE dictionary/encuclopedia of classical music, and a learned contributor still managed to slip in a hoax entry that was printed in the 20-volume effort.

i'm forever finding errors in the most learned reference books.

   And there have been 2 series on Beeb tv, called Balderdash and Piffle, in which people have been finding earlier first printings/documentation of words than the great Oxford English Dictionary had already.

So no surprises that Wikip., the internet, esteemed newspapers and government publications are all flawed. All have axes to gring, agendas too, and require their assumptions being uncovered.

it's a naughty world.




         Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 07:44 PM

"So he published The Myth of the Britannica, showing they'd gone to sleep on the job, having not revised many articles in yonks."

Dealing with information sources that are dodgy because they haven't been revised or are out of date, is something that's been around for ages - but dealing with information sources that are subject to revision by interested parties without any obvious indication of this having being done is something else, and it's a lot more tricky.

It would help if there was some mechanism by which changes were flagged up, and earlier versions were still available.
....................

...that the US-led invasion was not a "US-led occupation" but a "US-led liberation."

I'd say that's within the spirit of Wikipedia. The two expressions are equally subjective statements of opinion.

I'd disagree there - "occupation" is a straightforward term for a situation where a foreign army occupies a country and is in charge of running it. No value judgement is implied. An occupation can well be a liberation, a liberation carried out by a foreign army can hardly avoid being an occupation, for at least some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 10:56 PM

I suspect the founderw of Wikipedia become distraught in the extreme when entries of opinion are inserted as fact. I don't think that was their intention.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 01:06 PM

The wiki intro stuff says they reject copy which is not neutral. good if true andpossible.

   Not sure, even about neutrality of facts - the White House puts out a 'fact sheet' about the Iraq War.

   Any historian, and certainly philosopher, knows there is selection in the process of deciding what a fact is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not to mention agendas (see para 2 above.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 10:36 PM

Yeah, you're right about all of that. The problem that Wikipedia has, I suppose, is they would have to have an expert in every catagory you can think of to review the entries, and, of course, that's not what they're about.

             In spite of all of that, I think they are trying to do a good job, and I'll continue to use them.

             The problem one gets into is, if you're looking up something you know very little about, you can be led down the primrose path pretty easily. You can only hope that somebody who does know will take the trouble to enter a counter opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 03:45 AM

Yes, that's exactly the position most people are in about most subjects, and exactly the position where it's a BAD IDEA to rely on only one source of information.





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:33 PM

In spite of all of that, ... I'll continue to use them.

He who plays with a turd will be beshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 10:24 PM

"All have axes to gring"

Please don't gring my axe, I need it to chop wood... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 12:59 PM

How are you going to chop anything if you don't gring it first?




         Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:39 PM

Thread

    Dead?




       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Tootler
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM

I think we should be careful not to condemn all of Wikipedia on the basis of entries in an area which, by its very nature, is contentious.

I have a friend who is a statistics lecturer at a well respected English University and he says that the Wikipedia entry on basic statistics is excellent - better than the majority of text books.

He has a shrewd idea who the author of the entry is and says that he (the author) is a well respected academic who will make sure what he puts in is both correct and up to date.

That said, I agree that we should use a certain amount of caution when using Wikipedia. Nevertheless it is a very useful as a starting point and they do make the effort to reference their articles so you can follow up their sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:44 PM

Thread not dead.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:51 PM

Imagine what it was like to compile the first OED...no internet or email! Click Here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:50 AM

It now appears that since the ids of those posting are outed - that large numbers of edits have been done from Aust Govt sites.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:02 PM

I hope someone who knows will put back the true stuff that The Kremlins de nos jours aka 'our' democratic governmnet reps, took out.

   Would that result in constant in-out-in-out goings-on?





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:34 PM

oooooooooooooo - and on Government desks too...


(Australian Political Joke....)

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:50 PM

How is the OED supported anyway? It would seem there is a lot to lose if WikiPedia comes to be recognized as an actual authority on issues and items, and the OED dies on the vine because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:45 AM

That entirely depends on who's doing the 'recognising. Oxford Uni.Press, which publishes OED is pretty rich, and there are large important swathes of the world that will stick by the OED, knowing its authority and integrity.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 01:30 PM

The following does not bode well. I found it randomly displayed on a Wiki page to which google pointed:


"I'd rather read Wikipedia than my college textbooks." — William R.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 03:36 PM

does it give the reason? I can think of several circumstances where I'd say the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 05:51 PM

So big business censors its Wiki entries! Any news on the relief of Mafeking yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 10:01 PM

BillD, it was just included as a random quote. Sure you might say it, but I'll bet you'd read the textbooks anyway. Who knows, maybe that kid would, too. It read like an endorsement.:-)