Interesting slam on Wikipedia
Marc Goodman
authored by Jerry Holkins, AKA Tycho Brahe
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Holkins>,
<http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/16>:
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues.
As a model of how and where distributed intellect
fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.
When we were first considering making Epic Legends
Of The Hierarchs available as a publically manageable
satirical metanarrative, we dropped the basic
timeline on Wikipedia because I liked the way
their software went about things. Of course, a
phalanx of pedants leapt into action almost immediately
to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data -
our revolting fancruft.
That's okay with me. I wasn't aware they thought they
were making a real encyclopedia for big people at the
time, and if I had, I'd have sought out one of the many
other free solutions. I had seen the unbelievably detailed
He-Man and Pokémon entries and assumed - like any rational
person would - that Pokémaniacs were largely at the rudder
of the institution.
I am almost certain that - while they prune their deep
mine of trivia - they believe themselves to be engaged
in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working.
Reponses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this:
the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which
is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why
don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I
don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone
does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.
Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions.
The fact of the matter is that all sources of information
are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it
became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit
of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.
The second response is: the collaborative nature of the
apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge,
ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as
dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I
reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes
the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed
is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both
exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I
rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
bar...@bookpro.com
That reminds me. I looked up a long-ago boyfriend who who is now a
big-shot Republican warmonger. His Wikipedia entry mentions nothing
about some rather unsavory aspects of his past, and I am tempted to
fill in some of the gaps. But I don't have any idea how anonymous the
contributions are, and I don't want to be targeted by federal thugs,
or any other kind. So I'll probably leave it alone.
BW
TomH
<marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Copied from Penny Arcade, chock full o' memes and trollbait,
>authored by Jerry Holkins, AKA Tycho Brahe
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Holkins>,
><http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/16>:
>
>As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues.
>As a model of how and where distributed intellect
>fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.
Countered, for the most part, by a timely review from the
science journal 'Nature'.
--->Wikipedia as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica: Science
--->Journal
--->
--->By DAN GOODIN
--->Thursday, December 15, 2005 Posted at 11:18 AM EST
--->Associated Press
--->
--->SAN FRANCISCO — Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on
--->volunteers to pen nearly four million articles, is about as
--->accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia
--->Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an on-line article
--->published Wednesday.
--->
--->The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles
--->covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as
--->Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its
--->entries.
--->
--->Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the
--->former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding
--->editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia
--->entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as
--->a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John
--->F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.
--->
--->Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule,
--->Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific
--->journal said was the first to use peer review to compare
--->Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by
--->experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained
--->four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.
--->
--->Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including
--->misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from
--->each source, the journal reported.
--->
--->"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it
--->will focus people's attention on the overall level of our
--->work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded
--->St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Wikipedia in 2001.
--->
--->Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with
--->strong suits including pop culture and contemporary
--->technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated
--->volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such
--->areas, he said.
--->
--->The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on
--->the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for
--->literature for a particular year, Wales said.
--->
--->Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism
--->for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also
--->is working on ways to make its review process easier to use
--->by people who have less familiarity with computers and the
--->Internet.
--->
--->Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the
--->findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman
--->Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're
--->conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us
--->things you wouldn't know otherwise."
--->
--->While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized
--->Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free
--->service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on
--->topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which
--->competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not
--->covered in Britannica.
--->
--->Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and
--->correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.
--->
--->Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a
--->staff of experts to research and write its articles,
--->Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone
--->— amateur or professional, expert or novice — to submit and
--->edit entries.
--->
--->Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200
--->languages, is the 37th most visited website on the Internet,
--->according to the research service Alexa.
--
TomH [ antonomasia <at> gmail <dot> com ]
Otto Bahn
>>Copied from Penny Arcade, chock full o' memes and trollbait,
>>authored by Jerry Holkins, AKA Tycho Brahe
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Holkins>,
>><http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/16>:
>>
>>As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues.
>>As a model of how and where distributed intellect
>>fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.
>
> Countered, for the most part, by a timely review from the
> science journal 'Nature'.
>
> http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051215.gtwikidec15/BNStory/Technology/?query=wikipedia
The old appeal to authority, the science version! You think
something has merit just because it's published in a peer
reviewed article in a reputable journal? Man, you're gullible.
I'll take some blogger, who makes a scant two references to
He-Man and Pokémon, word for it any day.
Actually the article was so dumb I wasn't going to bother
shredding it. I suppose it is good somebody did.
--oTTo--
John D Salt
news:UbOdnU18dqKNhT7e...@newedgenetworks.com:
[Snips]
> The second response is: the collaborative nature of the
> apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge,
> ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as
> dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I
> reply: that does not inspire confidence.
Presumably, then, the responder will be equally concerned by the
horrifying observation that arguments (which I take it is the
translation of "dichotomous viewpoints violently intersecting"
into English, from the original Polysyllabic Flapdoodle) do not
occur in all academic disciplines worth the name.
> In fact, it makes
> the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed
> is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both
> exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I
> rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
It's lucky there are no discordant fucking mobs in the placid
groves of Academe, isn't it?
All the best,
John.
Marc Goodman
> [...] Based on 42 articles reviewed by
> --->experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained
> --->four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.
> --->
> --->Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including
> --->misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from
> --->each source, the journal reported.
> --->
> --->Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with
> --->strong suits including pop culture and contemporary
> --->technology.
OK, so Wikipedia has 168 errors in 42 scientific entries, four
of which were "serious," and one of Wiki's strong suits is contemporary
technology (and, I'd assume, science).
This seems impressively bad to me.
The fact that Encyclopedia Britannica is almost as bad as Wikipedia
is somewhat surprising but doesn't necessarily fill me with
confidence about Wikipedia as a reference source.
On the other hand, Wikipedia contains a stub article an a game
I did, with a link to an interview, whereas I don't appear
anywhere in Britannica, AFAIK. So, hey, rock on Wikipedia!
Marc Goodman
> Presumably, then, the responder will be equally concerned by the
> occur in all academic disciplines worth the name.
I'm pretty sure you meant that arguments do occur in all
academic disciplines worth the name.
One of the interesting things about USERNET technical newsgroups
is that, for the most part, experts contribute rarely to the discussion.
Instead, you have a bunch of people with some topical knowledge
doing a lot of hand waving and arguing, and asking the same
FAQs over and over and over again. My personal theory is that
experts don't get a lot out of these discussions, and the high
noise-to-signal ratio drives them away. Also, they have "real"
work to do, and they get tired of answering the same questions
on a frequent, periodic basis.
While I think the original article was mainly for amusement
value, I think the author does raise a valid point: there is
such a thing as expertise, and Wiki doesn't have a ready
mechanism for preferring the contributions of experts to
the contributions of people with limited knowledge of the
subject matter and/or a personal axe to grind. Obviously,
peer revue helps somewhat here, but with over 3M articles,
I doubt the experts will want to stick around and make sure
that the subject matter isn't vandalized.
>>In fact, it makes
>>the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed
>>is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both
>>exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I
>>rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
>
>
> It's lucky there are no discordant fucking mobs in the placid
> groves of Academe, isn't it?
I'll take the fucking mobs of Academe over the unwashed masses
of the InterWeb as far as authoritative reference sources go.
You are free to use whatever reference materials appeal to
you. Of course, the "real" answer is somewhere in the middle,
and no reference source is 100% trustworthy, but isn't it
FUN to pretend that the issue is black and white?
Marc Goodman
> Actually the article was so dumb I wasn't going to bother
> shredding it. I suppose it is good somebody did.
By all means, let's return to the important discussion about
the best way to turn a Budweiser bottle into a bar-room
weapon. Hey, is there a Wiki article on this? Let's write
one!
Otto Bahn
I haven't done my experimentation yet. You just can't
go spreading broken glass nilly-willy. First I need
to get my CSI lab certified. Do you have any idea how
much stupid documentation it takes to get certified?
I'll probably just end up doing it on my driveway
instead.
--oTTo--
Marc Goodman
> I haven't done my experimentation yet. You just can't
> go spreading broken glass nilly-willy. First I need
> to get my CSI lab certified. Do you have any idea how
> much stupid documentation it takes to get certified?
>
> I'll probably just end up doing it on my driveway
> instead.
Fuck that, I was just going to post it as the truth
and let someone else decide if it was right or not.
Or, I could just say, "According to a friend of a friend..."
Otto Bahn
>> [...] Based on 42 articles reviewed by
>> --->experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained
>> --->four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.
>> --->
>> --->Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including
>> --->misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from
>> --->each source, the journal reported.
>> --->
>> --->[...]
>> --->Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with
>> --->strong suits including pop culture and contemporary
>> --->technology.
>
> OK, so Wikipedia has 168 errors in 42 scientific entries, four
> of which were "serious," and one of Wiki's strong suits is contemporary
> technology (and, I'd assume, science).
>
> This seems impressively bad to me.
>
> The fact that Encyclopedia Britannica is almost as bad as Wikipedia
> is somewhat surprising but doesn't necessarily fill me with
> confidence about Wikipedia as a reference source.
I wouldn't even consider using either for anything past a
6th grade level book report. As a source of general info
on just about everything under the sun, Wikipedia rocks.
If I need chemotherapy, I'll think I can find some better
information 'round here.
> On the other hand, Wikipedia contains a stub article an a game
> I did, with a link to an interview, whereas I don't appear
> anywhere in Britannica, AFAIK. So, hey, rock on Wikipedia!
Well there you go!
--oTTo--
Marc Goodman
Done. We secretly replaced this man's Folger's Crystals
with real fresh-brewed coffee. Let's see what happens.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bilestoad>
Otto Bahn
>> I haven't done my experimentation yet. You just can't
>> go spreading broken glass nilly-willy. First I need
>> to get my CSI lab certified. Do you have any idea how
>> much stupid documentation it takes to get certified?
>>
>> I'll probably just end up doing it on my driveway
>> instead.
>
> Fuck that, I was just going to post it as the truth
> and let someone else decide if it was right or not.
The part about it working is certainly true. I need
to sort out the water volume issue. I don't want
anyone to have to hit it hard enough to break something
other than the bottle.
FWIW, the reason I slammed that guy's review is that
I have used Wikipedia a lot, and I don't think he has.
Either way he hit my button with the "how and where
distributed intellect fails". I'm not sure he under-
stands the point of an encyclopedia or how difficult
it is to create one, but that "discordant fucking mob"
may well put Britannica out of business.
--oTTo--
Marc Goodman
> FWIW, the reason I slammed that guy's review is that
> I have used Wikipedia a lot, and I don't think he has.
> Either way he hit my button with the "how and where
> distributed intellect fails". I'm not sure he under-
> stands the point of an encyclopedia or how difficult
> it is to create one, but that "discordant fucking mob"
> may well put Britannica out of business.
I agree that Wiki is a very handy and comprehensive
reference, and it's also fun to read. I use it fairly
frequently. But, when I really need to know something,
I go to Google and consult as many sources as I can
find/have time for, and I use my own judgement on what
is consensus and what is FUD. As, I'm sure, you do.
Wiki is great for what it is. What it _isn't_ though,
is the definitive reference source and compendium of
All Human Knowledge that certain straw-men mythical
people make it out to be.
Kevin S. Wilson
You'll never get the lab certified with that kind of sloppy,
unprofessional approach.
Kevin S. Wilson
<GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote:
>If I need chemotherapy, I'll think I can find some better
>information 'round here.
Um, oTTo. That reminds me.
You do.
Been meaning to tell you for days but, you know, end of semester and
all that.
Dan Krueger
The same bozos "use" Wikipedia as the ones who post (follow) ARK as some
lame-ass cult religion.
Earl
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
You could always mail someone out of the country, and they could
update it.
--
TimC
They skip the teaching of "8" and "G" in the public schools as part of
the "No Child Leaves Behinded" program. Too spendy.
-- Whosetitanelbow in ARK
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> OK, so Wikipedia has 168 errors in 42 scientific entries, four
>> of which were "serious," and one of Wiki's strong suits is contemporary
>> technology (and, I'd assume, science).
>>
>> This seems impressively bad to me.
>>
>> The fact that Encyclopedia Britannica is almost as bad as Wikipedia
>> is somewhat surprising but doesn't necessarily fill me with
>> confidence about Wikipedia as a reference source.
>
> I wouldn't even consider using either for anything past a
> 6th grade level book report. As a source of general info
> on just about everything under the sun, Wikipedia rocks.
Not an entry on Magellanic Stream (hmmm, searching for magellanic
didn't reveal anything, but I came across all the entries by indirect
means), and only one entry on a particular High Velocity Cloud.
Is my work that unimportant?
Maybe I should write something...
--
TimC
There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?
TomH
<GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote:
>"Marc Goodman" <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>>> Actually the article was so dumb I wasn't going to bother
>>> shredding it. I suppose it is good somebody did.
>>
>> By all means, let's return to the important discussion about
>> the best way to turn a Budweiser bottle into a bar-room
>> weapon. Hey, is there a Wiki article on this? Let's write
>> one!
>
>I haven't done my experimentation yet. You just can't
>go spreading broken glass nilly-willy. First I need
>to get my CSI lab certified. Do you have any idea how
>much stupid documentation it takes to get certified?
I only know how much documentation
it takes to get certified stupid.
TomH
<marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I'll take the fucking mobs of Academe over the unwashed masses
>of the InterWeb as far as authoritative reference sources go.
>You are free to use whatever reference materials appeal to
>you. Of course, the "real" answer is somewhere in the middle,
>and no reference source is 100% trustworthy, but isn't it
>FUN to pretend that the issue is black and white?
One thing Wiki has over other 'sources' is time-to-market.
When the tsunami of just-about-one-year-ago slapped silly
the south sea islands, etc., Wiki had great content on
sorting out who, what and where rather promptly. For us of
the unwashed masses it was a good place to learn quickly
without the talking (butt)heads of CNN getting in the way.
All of the video footage and photography that emerged in the
first 48 hours was via teh InterWebNet and mostly referenced
through Wikipedia. Even looking through the subject article
today ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_tsunami ), it
appears to be a comprehensive and substantial reference. It
may contain errors of fact or ommission but it will suffice
for at least ~98.6% of the audience. Anyone needing more or
more accurate detail will clearly be looking at more
qualified sources, or will BE more qualified sources.
Ditto on the hubbub and history about the whole Pope thing
that happened over in Italia. I hear that Der Neu Pope
Benedicto MCMCLXVIIII.1 is getting along famously.
Yo! KIBO! Have you had your audience with da Pappa yet?
John D Salt
[Snips]
> I'm pretty sure you meant that arguments do occur in all
> academic disciplines worth the name.
Yes.
> One of the interesting things about USERNET technical
> newsgroups is that, for the most part, experts contribute
> rarely to the discussion. Instead, you have a bunch of
> people with some topical knowledge doing a lot of hand
> waving and arguing, and asking the same FAQs over and over
> and over again. My personal theory is that experts don't
> get a lot out of these discussions, and the high
> noise-to-signal ratio drives them away. Also, they have
> "real" work to do, and they get tired of answering the same
> questions on a frequent, periodic basis.
And this, I think, is thanks to the decline of the moderated
newsgroup. There used to be some top-notch expertise available
on some groups. One can hardly have a greater authority than
Terry Pratchett on the works of Terry Pratchett; and I recall
with pleasure a discussion about the flying characteristics of
the MiG-17 that was greatly enhanced by the contribution of
someone who owned and flew a MiG-17.
Things haven't been helped by the drenching of practically all
froups since the invasion of Iraq with prolix, hysterical and
infantile drivel from people of various but clueless political
positions pointing out that their interlocutors are baby-eating
Nazis/Godless Communists who will murder us in our
beds/supporters of a genocidal dictator/supporters of
international terrorism. But people who think Yahoo! groups are
a good idea have also contributed their meed tot he Death of
Usernet.
Maybe when I form the Logic Police they should have a department
responsible for issuing licences to drive on the Information
Superfrog.
> While I think the original article was mainly for amusement
> value, I think the author does raise a valid point: there is
> such a thing as expertise, and Wiki doesn't have a ready
> mechanism for preferring the contributions of experts to
> the contributions of people with limited knowledge of the
> subject matter and/or a personal axe to grind. Obviously,
> peer revue helps somewhat here,
What mechanism do you think the rest of the world has for
preferring the contributions of experts, apart from peer review?
[Snips]
> I'll take the fucking mobs of Academe over the unwashed
> masses of the InterWeb as far as authoritative reference
> sources go.
I'm intrigued by the idea that an encyclopedia is supposed to
serve as an "authoritative reference source" for anything. Do
you really think that people with functioning brains cite
references to Britannica, Grolier or Encarta and imagine that
they have thereby said the last word on the subject?
> You are free to use whatever reference materials
> appeal to you.
Why, thank you. Until you mentioned it, I wasn't even aware that
I nmeeded your permission.
> Of course, the "real" answer is somewhere in
> the middle, and no reference source is 100% trustworthy, but
> isn't it FUN to pretend that the issue is black and white?
No, the REAL answer lies in the 1926 edition of Pear's
Cyclopedia, which is in all repects completely and utterly
definitive.
All the best,
John.
John D Salt
news:m6b7q1l3dhup9e46j...@4ax.com:
[Snips]
> I only know how much documentation
> it takes to get certified stupid.
Damn.
Couldn't you re-jig that just a *teensy* bit to make it a haiku?
All the best,
John.
Marc Goodman
> And this, I think, is thanks to the decline of the moderated
>
>>While I think the original article was mainly for amusement
>>value, I think the author does raise a valid point: there is
>>such a thing as expertise, and Wiki doesn't have a ready
>>mechanism for preferring the contributions of experts to
>>the contributions of people with limited knowledge of the
>>subject matter and/or a personal axe to grind. Obviously,
>>peer revue helps somewhat here,
>
>
> What mechanism do you think the rest of the world has for
> preferring the contributions of experts, apart from peer review?
You named a rather good mechanism yourself up above.
Most reliable references have some form of editorial
review and/or moderation as well as peer review.
But the point of the original article, other than as a
somewhat amusing screed, was that the process of revision
on Wiki doesn't even qualify as peer review. When I write
a paper and submit it to a conference or journal, the
people reviewing my work are practitioners in my field
who were selected by other practitioners in my field
for their expertise (as well as their willingness to
devote time to the process of reviewing some of the truly
dreadful crap that passes for academic research in my
chosen field). Though the pool of available reviewers
is somewhat of a mixed bag, as anyone who has been through
"peer review" should be willing to testify, there's
some form of qualitative difference between an academic
journal reviewer who has been chosen by an editorial
board to review an article and a random 13 year old
boy who can use a web browser to create a Wiki login
and vandalize any random submission on any topic whatsoever.
But, I suspect you know this already and have chosen to
ignore this fact for the sole purpose of extending this
wonderful and amusing discussion. Thank you!
>>I'll take the fucking mobs of Academe over the unwashed
>>masses of the InterWeb as far as authoritative reference
>>sources go.
>
>
> I'm intrigued by the idea that an encyclopedia is supposed to
> serve as an "authoritative reference source" for anything. Do
> you really think that people with functioning brains cite
> references to Britannica, Grolier or Encarta and imagine that
> they have thereby said the last word on the subject?
I just want to be clear on what it is we're discussing. Are
we discussing whether Wiki has fundamental issues in
the creation and revision of its articles that are due to
the very nature of unsupervised collaborative contribution
of those articles by Any Random Wonk with a keyboard, or
are we arguing that no encyclopedia can be taken as an
authoritative reference source? Because, if it's the latter,
then I'm perfectly willing to concede that point, you win,
congratulations. But, I really thought we were discussing
the former.
>>You are free to use whatever reference materials
>>appeal to you.
>
> Why, thank you. Until you mentioned it, I wasn't even aware that
> I nmeeded your permission.
Just wait until the revolution comes, when you and your
cronies at the death factory will be the first of the jerks
against the wall. You and the circus clowns.
> No, the REAL answer lies in the 1926 edition of Pear's
> Cyclopedia, which is in all repects completely and utterly
> definitive.
SUBSCIRBE!
John D Salt
[Snips]
> You named a rather good mechanism yourself up above.
> Most reliable references have some form of editorial
> review and/or moderation as well as peer review.
That is merely another form of peer review, but with the added
administrative garnish of an editorial board.
As far as I am aware, there is no rule to prevent any plooky 13-
year-old with a keyboard (and, presumably, a gobbet of authoring
[1] software) from starting his own academic journal in any
subject he likes. Indeed I know two people who have started
their own journals, although neither were 13-year-olds, and only
one was the slightest bit plook-ridden.
> But the point of the original article, other than as a
> somewhat amusing screed, was that the process of revision
> on Wiki doesn't even qualify as peer review.
Yes it does. The articles can be reviewed by any contributor,
and all contributors are peers. The reviewers peer at the
articles, and, presto!, academic respectability mysteriously
fails to appear BUT WOULD HAVE DONE IF YOU HADN'T STOLE MY FAIRY
DUST.
> When I write
> a paper and submit it to a conference or journal, the
> people reviewing my work are practitioners in my field
> who were selected by other practitioners in my field
> for their expertise (as well as their willingness to
> devote time to the process of reviewing some of the truly
> dreadful crap that passes for academic research in my
> chosen field).
Or were selected because publication date was looming menacingly
[2], and there were no other academics working in that area to be
found in their offices that day when the journal editor/head-of-
department came stomping round to look for reviewers. Not that
this has happened to me very often.
> Though the pool of available reviewers
> is somewhat of a mixed bag, as anyone who has been through
> "peer review" should be willing to testify, there's
> some form of qualitative difference between an academic
> journal reviewer who has been chosen by an editorial
> board to review an article and a random 13 year old
> boy who can use a web browser to create a Wiki login
> and vandalize any random submission on any topic whatsoever.
But the community of wiki-fiddlers does not consist entirely of
13-year old boys.
> But, I suspect you know this already and have chosen to
> ignore this fact for the sole purpose of extending this
> wonderful and amusing discussion. Thank you!
No, I was ignoring it for numerous other reasons as well,
including several ulterior motives that cannot be disclosed
without compromising my secret plans for world domination.
>>>I'll take the fucking mobs of Academe over the unwashed
>>>masses of the InterWeb as far as authoritative reference
>>>sources go.
>>
>> I'm intrigued by the idea that an encyclopedia is supposed
>> to serve as an "authoritative reference source" for
>> anything. Do you really think that people with functioning
>> brains cite references to Britannica, Grolier or Encarta
>> and imagine that they have thereby said the last word on
>> the subject?
>
> I just want to be clear on what it is we're discussing. Are
> we discussing whether Wiki has fundamental issues in
> the creation and revision of its articles that are due to
> the very nature of unsupervised collaborative contribution
> of those articles by Any Random Wonk with a keyboard, or
> are we arguing that no encyclopedia can be taken as an
> authoritative reference source? Because, if it's the
> latter, then I'm perfectly willing to concede that point,
> you win, congratulations. But, I really thought we were
> discussing the former.
Well I don't know what "fundamental issues" is supposed to mean,
unless it is something that issues from the fundament. If by
"issues" you mean "problems", then, yes, Wiki things have
problems getting their facts straight; but these problems are
exactly the same as those that exist in the rest of the world,
including academe, industrial research, publication of reference
books and an enthralling and colourful series that will build
into a 64-part collection for your children to use and treasure.
The problems are fundamental aspects of the eternal struggle of
Truth vs. Falsity, Good vs. Evil and Coke vs. Pepsi, not some
weirdo artifact of wikitude. The only difference is one of
scale, in that a wiki can get harmfully fatuous bilge promulgated
worldwide in a lunchtime, whereas it might take a serious and
respected academic such as Cyril Burt several decades.
[Snips]
> Just wait until the revolution comes, when you and your
> cronies at the death factory will be the first of the jerks
> against the wall. You and the circus clowns.
BWAhahahah, we have preemptively foiled your plan of post-
revolutionary cronicide. The offices in the Death Factory have
hardly a wall to be seen, but instead endless runs of cubicle
partitions.
The clownicide, on the other hand, may proceed as intended.
>> No, the REAL answer lies in the 1926 edition of Pear's
>> Cyclopedia, which is in all repects completely and utterly
>> definitive.
>
> SUBSCIRBE!
Dammit, I haven't even got my own copy yet. Consequently I am
often at a loss when needing to known the number of boxes in a
creel, or the 1926 subscriptions for country members of the
Reform Club. I manage to struggle on gamely without "Beauty
Hints for the Lady", though.
Oh yeah, and this psoting is completely and utterly defintiive
because it has footnotes [3].
All the best,
John.
[1] This is a dreadful word. What an author does should
obviously be "authing", not "authoring".
[2] In the interests of controlling the needless superabundance
of spurious, unecessary and otiose adjectives and adverbs, I'm
wondering if it is possible to loom non-menacingly. I suspect
that it is, but only in nautical contexts. A definitive ruling
from a qualified philologist or zit-infested teen would be
welcome.
[3] Like this.
Marc Goodman
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:jfCdnUjVRej...@newedgenetworks.com:
> 13-year old boys.
I would be very interested in seeing a study on the
demographic mix of Wiki-fiddlers. As far as I can tell,
the community of Wiki-fiddlers consists of a handful
of obsessive-compulsives who truly care about particular
subject areas, some knights in shining armor who are on
a gallant quest to codify All! Knowledge! Everywhere! under
copyleft, and a whole bunch of people with nothing better
to do with their time than to author Wiki articles.
The strawman version of your argument is that this collection
of individuals is every bit as qualified to hold forth on
the vast body of human knowledge as people who have studied
their subject material and are paid to write about it on
a professional basis.
I would now present the more balanced view of your argument,
except I'm having a great deal of trouble in pinning down
exactly where it differs from the strawman version. Something
about how the rest of the world is fatally flawed as well,
so Wiki is no worse than that.
Heck, let's just replace Wiki with a group of 5 year olds
scrawling in the mud with pointy sticks. That's a community
of peers as well, and if you let them cross-out each other's
scrawls, you even have peer review. This is obviously no
worse than Encyclopedia Britannica, since you wouldn't use
either one as a definitive reference source.
> Well I don't know what "fundamental issues" is supposed to mean,
> unless it is something that issues from the fundament.
I was trying not to say "ontological," but you forced it
out of me. I hope you're happy now.
> [...] The only difference is one of
> scale, in that a wiki can get harmfully fatuous bilge promulgated
> worldwide in a lunchtime, whereas it might take a serious and
> respected academic such as Cyril Burt several decades.
Do you remember the Open Directory Project? It started out
pretty good when it had around 10K-50K categories. Then,
as it got to 100K or thereabouts, redundancy started to creep
in. You started to see thirty different versions of the same
category with slightly different names under different supercategories.
Then it started to rot, because it's always more fun to create
new categories than it is to maintain the existing ones. Then
it got up to 500K categories, and no two category trees have the
same organization, there is redundant and out-of-date information
everywhere, and the whole thing is a big, un-navigable mess.
Sometimes you need two things that are lacking in Wiki:
1). A central authority and decision making body that can impose
order, 2). people who are paid to do the scutwork that no one
is willing to do for free. I believe that as Wiki gets to the
10M or 100M article range, you'll see more and more of these
problems.
By the way, I think one of the reasons Linux is so successful
as a collaborative effort is that the scope of Linux is strictly
bounded. Linux is exactly as big as it needs to be, no matter how
many people are currently working on it, so it avoids a lot of the
scaling issues that ODP or Wiki have/will have. Also, there
has always been strong "editorial control" over what makes it
into the kernel and what doesn't (at least back in the days when
Linus was running the show. I have no idea what's happening
more recently).
> Oh yeah, and this psoting is completely and utterly defintiive
> because it has footnotes [3].
> [3] Like this.
Footnotes are the LAST REFUGE of the INTELLECTUALLY DESPERATE.
TomH
I only know
Docu ment ation
Stu pid
Regards,
TomH
John D Salt
[Snips]
> I would be very interested in seeing a study on the
> demographic mix of Wiki-fiddlers.
So are you prepared to stump up a research grant? Huh? Are ya?
> As far as I can tell,
> the community of Wiki-fiddlers consists of a handful
> of obsessive-compulsives who truly care about particular
> subject areas, some knights in shining armor who are on
> a gallant quest to codify All! Knowledge! Everywhere! under
> copyleft, and a whole bunch of people with nothing better
> to do with their time than to author Wiki articles.
Replace "Wiki articles" with "journal papers" and I think you
have a tolerably good description of academe, at least in the UK.
> The strawman version of your argument is that this
> collection of individuals is every bit as qualified to hold
> forth on the vast body of human knowledge as people who have
> studied their subject material and are paid to write about
> it on a professional basis.
Given that you don't know whether or not any given wiki-fiddler
has studied his subject material, the distinguishing virtue that
makes whatever-source-it-is-you-think-is-better-than-wikis
(hereafter WSIIYTIBTW) better appears to be payment. I
understand this method of assessing intellectual worth, but I
think it is complete crap.
> I would now present the more balanced view of your argument,
> except I'm having a great deal of trouble in pinning down
> exactly where it differs from the strawman version.
> Something about how the rest of the world is fatally flawed
> as well, so Wiki is no worse than that.
>
> Heck, let's just replace Wiki with a group of 5 year olds
> scrawling in the mud with pointy sticks. That's a community
> of peers as well, and if you let them cross-out each other's
> scrawls, you even have peer review. This is obviously no
> worse than Encyclopedia Britannica, since you wouldn't use
> either one as a definitive reference source.
So are you claiming that there is a difference in kind between
wikis and WSIIYTIBTW, or merely one of degree?
The chief important difference between academe and wikidom, as
far as I can see, is that academics are forced to dress up as
clowns, in order that people should know how seriously to take
their pronouncements. But I don't actually know whether or not
wiki-fiddlers dress as clowns while engaged in wiki-fiddling.
It's like wireless broadcasters on the Home Service in the 1930s,
they all wore evening dress, but there was no way of telling just
by listening to them.
>> Well I don't know what "fundamental issues" is supposed to
>> mean, unless it is something that issues from the
>> fundament.
>
> I was trying not to say "ontological," but you forced it
> out of me. I hope you're happy now.
WTF has ontology got to do with anything? [ <-- FEED LINE]
And would you have said "wikipedia has ontological issues",
"wikipedia has fundamental ontological", or "wikipedia has
ontological"? Say which, say why, explain your ravings, and keep
your hands where I can see them.
>> [...] The only difference is one of
>> scale, in that a wiki can get harmfully fatuous bilge
>> promulgated worldwide in a lunchtime, whereas it might take
>> a serious and respected academic such as Cyril Burt several
>> decades.
>
> Do you remember the Open Directory Project?
No. The way you describe it, though, it sounds a lot like the
Dewey Decimal System.
> By the way, I think one of the reasons Linux is so
> successful as a collaborative effort is that the scope of
> Linux is strictly bounded.
Yes, one might reasonably expect writing a Unix-like OS to be a
more restricted task than providing a structured account of
general knowledge.
> Linux is exactly as big as it
> needs to be,
Unless you are Andy Tanenbaum, who once upon a time thought it
really only needed to be as big an Minix.
> no matter how many people are currently working
> on it, so it avoids a lot of the scaling issues that ODP or
> Wiki have/will have. Also, there has always been strong
> "editorial control" over what makes it into the kernel and
> what doesn't (at least back in the days when Linus was
> running the show. I have no idea what's happening more
> recently).
So "editorial control" is what wikipedia needs more of, is it?
Sounds like management thinking to me.
>> Oh yeah, and this psoting is completely and utterly
>> defintiive because it has footnotes [3].
>> [3] Like this.
>
> Footnotes are the LAST REFUGE of the INTELLECTUALLY
> DESPERATE.
As described by Noodnik et al, 1993 [1]
All the best,
John.
[1] Noodnik, J., Orianenbaum, K., Templeton-Ranfurly, S.,
Whittington, R., Xi, T, "Footnotes: valuable pedagogical tool or
last refuge of the intellectually desperate?", Int J Misapp Psych
vol. 4 no. 3, 1993.
TomH
<marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>But the point of the original article, other than as a
>somewhat amusing screed, was that the process of revision
>on Wiki doesn't even qualify as peer review. When I write
>a paper and submit it to a conference or journal, the
>people reviewing my work are practitioners in my field
>who were selected by other practitioners in my field
>for their expertise (as well as their willingness to
>devote time to the process of reviewing some of the truly
>dreadful crap that passes for academic research in my
>chosen field).
Well, there you go. You (Academia, in the good sense) have
a purpose of research, based on an existing foundation of
other research, to beget more research and an additional
stone block in the Foundation of Universal Knowledge
Department (FUK'D). And where would we be without it? We'd
be slobbering simians fighting with Grog over the best
cavesite. As it is, we fuk'd if something Truly Important
is based on the "crap that passes for academic research".
So, ummm, get back to work and corral those clowns!
>Though the pool of available reviewers
>is somewhat of a mixed bag, as anyone who has been through
>"peer review" should be willing to testify, there's
>some form of qualitative difference between an academic
>journal reviewer who has been chosen by an editorial
>board to review an article and a random 13 year old
>boy who can use a web browser to create a Wiki login
>and vandalize any random submission on any topic whatsoever.
If I want or need to know, say, the population and average
income of Lower Slobovia for personal or commercial reasons,
I'll reference a few sources. Maybe a few more if something
seems questionable or tainted or written with crayon-scented
hands. I've always considered academic, pure research and
publication of same to be beyond an encyclopedic reference,
Wiki or not. When I need to evaluate the finer nuances of
Slobovian (Lower) memes, genealogy, fashion and promiscuity,
I'll look up someone or somthing in the Slobovian (Lower)
Foundation of Universal Knowledge Department.
>I just want to be clear on what it is we're discussing. Are
>we discussing whether Wiki has fundamental issues in
>the creation and revision of its articles that are due to
>the very nature of unsupervised collaborative contribution
>of those articles by Any Random Wonk with a keyboard, or
>are we arguing that no encyclopedia can be taken as an
>authoritative reference source? Because, if it's the latter,
>then I'm perfectly willing to concede that point, you win,
>congratulations. But, I really thought we were discussing
>the former.
The fact that Wiki is as good as it is, for it's purpose, is
phenomenal on its own. Eventually it may become overblown
with inaccurate, redundant redundancies, and errors, even.
Until then, it's pretty cool.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> As far as I can tell, the community of Wiki-fiddlers consists of a
> handful of obsessive-compulsives who truly care about particular subject
> areas, some knights in shining armor who are on a gallant quest to codify
> All! Knowledge! Everywhere! under copyleft, and a whole bunch of people
> with nothing better to do with their time than to author Wiki articles.
People have hobbies. Some are more productive than others. Posting on ARK is
a pretty unproductive use of your time, I think. Writing articles for
Wikipedia would be somewhat more productive. Or you could paint landscapes
or something, if that's what floats your boat.
-- Ben
Rose Marie Holt
Dan Krueger <dankr...@mindspringxxx.com> wrote:
>
> The same bozos "use" Wikipedia as the ones who post (follow) ARK as some
> lame-ass cult religion.
>
> Earl
I'm sure I dont do that. It;s j\ust that without Kiibology, I would
have nomeaning in my life.
I know I dont use Wikipedia.
And it is sad that this Hmas season, I have no church in the area I will
be in that I want to go to. My home church is moving out of the parish
hall into the stone building that was damaged in ought too by the
earthquake, and I'll be in some punk ass church that either doesnt know
how to do it up right or which is full of people who are really not my
idea of people I llike to be around on the holiday. Especially if there
is going to be singing.
Rose Marie Holt
John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:UbOdnU18dqKNhT7e...@newedgenetworks.com:
>
> [Snips]
> > The second response is: the collaborative nature of the
> > apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge,
> > ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as
> > dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I
> > reply: that does not inspire confidence.
>
> Presumably, then, the responder will be equally concerned by the
> horrifying observation that arguments (which I take it is the
> translation of "dichotomous viewpoints violently intersecting"
> into English, from the original Polysyllabic Flapdoodle) do not
> occur in all academic disciplines worth the name.
>
> > In fact, it makes
> > the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed
> > is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both
> > exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I
> > rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
>
> It's lucky there are no discordant fucking mobs in the placid
> groves of Academe, isn't it?
>
> All the best,
>
> John.
What if the fucking mob were in a spaceship traveling around the earth?
Would they be alive or dead?
Rose Marie Holt
John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> No, the REAL answer lies in the 1926 edition of Pear's
> Cyclopedia, which is in all repects completely and utterly
> definitive.
>
> All the best,
>
> John.
Oh, please. We all knew this was going to happen the day of the Green
Card Spam. Or the day AOL joined up. That's what's sad - we saw it
coming.
I liked Orkut OK except that I ran out ofd things to say pretty fast and
then you have to page from day 1 to the end, which on dialup isnt worth
it - you might as well call up everyone in youre interest group and have
them fax their contributions.
Maybe I'll try MySpace, then I can talk to my kids and see their "rooms"
And now that no one gives a shit about actual knowledge who cares if an
encyclopedia has good info? The stuff we are all supposedly so
interested in is fluff where the answer really doesnt matter.
Rose Marie Holt
Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
Subtract from Cart! Posting to ark is the best thing I do somedays.
And if someone on ark gets me laughing out loud, that is something you
cant buy or work hard for.
Rose Marie Holt
John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
Isnt that like a PhD - get a great idea and dump it on someone else to
work on for YEARS to see if it is the great thesis project he thinks it
is.
NotBitter.
TMG
> What if the fucking mob were in a spaceship traveling around the earth?
> Would they be alive or dead?
Heisenberg:
Yes - both alive and dead (to a certain percentage chance of each) until
the observation is made.
I don't know if there's a cat on board.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> <http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/16>
Oh, this is a classic. Check out the second paragraph:
> When we were first considering making Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs
> available as a publically manageable satirical metanarrative, we dropped
> the basic timeline on Wikipedia because I liked the way their software
> went about things. Of course, a phalanx of pedants leapt into action
> almost immediately to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data - our
> revolting fancruft.
In other words, he added some material that violated Wikipedia policies,
and it was quickly removed---i.e. the system worked. So he decides to lash
back on his high-profile blog. Then, if that wasn't already childish enough,
he claims not to be upset while simultaneously making it obvious that he is:
> That's okay with me. I wasn't aware they thought they were making a real
> encyclopedia for big people at the time, and if I had, I'd have sought
> out one of the many other free solutions. I had seen the unbelievably
> detailed He-Man and Pokémon entries and assumed - like any rational
> person would - that Pokémaniacs were largely at the rudder of the
> institution.
>
> I am almost certain that - while they prune their deep mine of trivia -
> they believe themselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's
> Greatest Working.
The next stage is for him to start anonymously vandalizing Wikipedia like he
did in the comic, just to show those dumb Wikipedians something or other.
-- Ben
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Subtract from Cart! Posting to ark is the best thing I do somedays.
> And if someone on ark gets me laughing out loud, that is something you
> cant buy or work hard for.
Oh, I agree. I was just mocking the idea that writing articles for Wikipedia
is a waste of time.
-- Ben
Marc Goodman
> Marc Goodman wrote:
>
>> <http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/16>
>
>
> Oh, this is a classic. Check out the second paragraph:
>
>> When we were first considering making Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs
>> available as a publically manageable satirical metanarrative, we dropped
>> the basic timeline on Wikipedia because I liked the way their software
>> went about things. Of course, a phalanx of pedants leapt into action
>> almost immediately to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data - our
>> revolting fancruft.
>
>
> In other words, he added some material that violated Wikipedia policies,
> and it was quickly removed---i.e. the system worked. So he decides to
> lash back on his high-profile blog. Then, if that wasn't already
> childish enough, he claims not to be upset while simultaneously making
> it obvious that he is:
Hi Ben! Here's a Wiki article you might find interesting:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
Good luck with that!
Marc Goodman
Actually, you were mocking the idea that some percentage of
the people who author Wiki articles had nothing better to do
with their time. There's a subtle distinction there, it might
be a little tricky to "tease out." But, in general, I heartily
approve of mocking an argument rather than posting facts to
refute it, because it's so much easier to do, and sometimes
even works! So, good on ya, mate!
Marc Goodman
> The chief important difference between academe and wikidom, as
> far as I can see, is that academics are forced to dress up as
> clowns, in order that people should know how seriously to take
> their pronouncements.
If you truly believe this, I understand completely why you think
that Britannica, Wikipedia and Stickipedia (my all-new-Wiki composed
by 5 yr-olds with pointy sticks scrawling in the mud) are equally
valid. I lack the expertise to refute the claim that all people
are equally qualified to comment on all areas of human knowledge.
On the other hand, according to that argument, I don't _need_ any
special expertise to refute the claim, and my uninformed opinion
is equally as valid as anyone elses, so I refute the claim with
no further explanation necessary.
John D Salt
news:rmholt1-2FB77F...@news1.west.earthlink.net:
[Snips]
> What if the fucking mob were in a spaceship traveling around
> the earth? Would they be alive or dead?
If they are serious about intellectual respectability, they
organise a series of balloon debates, and the each time a panel
member loses they are tossed out of the air-lock, thus resigning
membership of the "alive" group and gaining membership of the
"dead" group.
If, on the other hand, they are the Golgofrincham "B" Ark, they
merely hold focus group meetings about consumer reaction to the
proposed new packaging of St.Thomas Aquinas' ontology [1].
All the best,
John.
[1] Note: "Ontology" here is used, at variance with current
routine practice, to mean ontology.
John D Salt
> In article <Xns972F6F17764B...@216.196.109.145>,
> John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
[Snips]
>> Couldn't you re-jig that just a *teensy* bit to make it a
>> haiku?
>
> Isnt that like a PhD - get a great idea and dump it on
> someone else to work on for YEARS to see if it is the great
> thesis project he thinks it is.
Not as far as academic custom in the UK is concerned, for 2
reasons:
1. The Cand. Sci. picks their own PhD subject. Since a vital
aspect of higher education is accepting responsibnility for one's
own learning, it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT in ALL CAPS that the
student realise that there is no-one to blame for their hideously
intractable choice of thesis topic other than the student their
own self. Also, progressive disenchantment with the topic chosen
helps the student to conduct a continuous re-evaluation of their
own competence in deciding things, thus producing feelings of
intellectual inadequacy, gross incompetence, self-loathing, and a
strong inclination to sack the whole blasted thing as being not
worth the effort. At this point we reach the fork in the road
when the Cand. Sci. can either pack in the PhD and retain some
sense of self-worth, or grit their teeth, finish the thing by any
means necessary, and by incremental self-hatred achieve the
glorious goal of INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY, hurrah hurrah, also
accompanied by funny hat. Ignorant outsiders erroneously imagine
funny hat to have been awarded for extreme cleverness; PhDs all
sworn to maintain guilty secret that funny hat awarded mainly for
stubborness.
2. Due to entrenched bias of academic authorities, PhD theses
not normally accepted if consisting of only 17 syllables.
But apart from those 2 reasons, exactly like a PhD.
All the best,
John.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Hi Ben! Here's a Wiki article you might find interesting:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
>
> Good luck with that!
My post had nothing to do with Wikipedia. The only claim I made about
Wikipedia was that "the system worked", which was correct (in context). You
can't just cry ad hominem whenever somebody personally attacks someone for
an essay they wrote arguing about some other thing. Well, you can, but...
oh, never mind.
As it happens, I think that he made some valid points about Wikipedia. I
also think that all of his points, including the valid ones, were stupid.
How clueless do you have to be to point out that Wikipedia's reliability is
threatened by the fact that anyone is allowed to edit it? Who does he think
he's educating? This just in: libraries contain books on a variety of
subjects. But they refused to stock my personal diary, so watch out: some of
those books are by crackpots!
Anyway, apologies for cluttering this usually entertaining group with my
unhumorous ranting.
-- Ben
rone
Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Copied from Penny Arcade, chock full o' memes and trollbait,
>authored by Jerry Holkins, AKA Tycho Brahe
Please keep this plagiaristic shit in your weblog and out of a.r.k.
Also, Penny Arcade Is Not Funny[tm].
For a truly interesting slam on Wikipedia, try
<http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/>.
rone
and by "interesting", i mean "crack-headed"
--
No IT story is complete without an unhappy ending.
- Roy S. Rapoport <r...@inorganic.org>
Marc Goodman
> In article <UbOdnU18dqKNhT7e...@newedgenetworks.com>,
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Copied from Penny Arcade, chock full o' memes and trollbait,
>>authored by Jerry Holkins, AKA Tycho Brahe
>
>
> Please keep this plagiaristic shit in your weblog and out of a.r.k.
Yes sir, sorry sir, it will never happen again. I am not allowed.
Marc Goodman
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:jfCdnUjVRej...@newedgenetworks.com:
>>somewhat amusing screed, was that the process of revision
>>on Wiki doesn't even qualify as peer review.
>
>
> Yes it does. The articles can be reviewed by any contributor,
> and all contributors are peers. The reviewers peer at the
> articles, and, presto!, academic respectability mysteriously
> fails to appear BUT WOULD HAVE DONE IF YOU HADN'T STOLE MY FAIRY
> DUST.
Wiki itself has some interesting commentary on this topic
under <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia>.
Please note that this topic is currently nominated for
deletion because it may be rundant to the existing topics:
Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great.
The irony that I am using Wiki an a canonical source to
defend the claim that Wiki should not be considered a canonical
source is not lost on me. MMM, YUMMY YUMMY IRONY.
You might want to consider editing this article yourself,
since you clearly disagree with the statement that Wikipedia
contains no formal peer review process.
=================== cut here ===================
Difficulty of fact checking
Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for
fact-checking, and due to the lack of requiring qualifications
to edit any article, the editors themselves may not be
well-versed in the topics they write about. Since the bulk
of Wikipedia's fact-checking involves an internet search,
self-perpetuating errors are inevitable. The amount of
fact-checking per page is directly related to the amount
of frequent editors per page, thus errors on obscure topics
may remain for some time. Even in pages with dozens of editors,
a fact erroneously inserted along with dozens of other changes
may "slip" into a page and stay. As well, since all edits of
one user are displayed instantly to all readers, it is essentially
impossible for any fact checking to occur until after the
information (or misinformation) is already published.
This particular criticism is Wikipedia's most frequently
encountered weakness in reality. Sometimes, the subject of
a biographical article must fix blatant lies about his own
life. [2] A nihilartikel was once inserted into Wikipedia
that lasted for five months. [3]
bar...@bookpro.com
And doing a damn poor job of it. I suppose this is a reverse
meta-troll or some tiresome thing of that kind.
BW
Dan Krueger
You are a sad individual. Get professional help...Now.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:jfCdnUjVRej...@newedgenetworks.com:
>
> [Snips]
>> You named a rather good mechanism yourself up above.
>> Most reliable references have some form of editorial
>> review and/or moderation as well as peer review.
>
> That is merely another form of peer review, but with the added
> administrative garnish of an editorial board.
>
> As far as I am aware, there is no rule to prevent any plooky 13-
> year-old with a keyboard (and, presumably, a gobbet of authoring
> [1] software) from starting his own academic journal in any
> subject he likes. Indeed I know two people who have started
> their own journals, although neither were 13-year-olds, and only
> one was the slightest bit plook-ridden.
I hear that some researchers got together in one of the biological
fields, and started their own journal, because they were sick of
paying exorbitant page charges, viewing charges, and having a complete
lack of rights. Funny how some journal can get away with obtaining
large amount of referee time for free, sub editors for free, articles
for free (retaining the copyright), and charges for both publishing
and readership.
Now, counter to your "everyone can start a journal", if you start
finding that no non-plonkable authors will publish with you, nor read
you, and your papers get no citations, then perhaps you won't stay
afloat for long.
--
TimC
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Bryce Utting
> You are a sad individual. Get professional help...Now.
the idea of mindless trolls spewing nonsense is one I've been long
familiar with, but just why this one feels compelled to post *the
contents of his own inbox* is, frankly, beyond me.
butting
--
I am very new to programming drivers so if I sound un-knowledgeable
then it's because I am.
-- first4internet's Ceri Coburn on writing Sony's DRM rootkit
Bryce Utting
> Wiki itself has some interesting commentary on this topic
> under <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia>.
> Please note that this topic is currently nominated for
> deletion because it may be rundant to the existing topics:
> Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great.
>
> The irony that I am using Wiki an a canonical source to
> defend the claim that Wiki should not be considered a canonical
> source is not lost on me. MMM, YUMMY YUMMY IRONY.
mistaking relevance for canonicity! WIKIPLONK!!!1!
Paula
<marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I would now present the more balanced view of your argument,
>except I'm having a great deal of trouble in pinning down
>exactly where it differs from the strawman version. Something
>about how the rest of the world is fatally flawed as well,
>so Wiki is no worse than that.
>
>Heck, let's just replace Wiki with a group of 5 year olds
>scrawling in the mud with pointy sticks.
This last sentence proves that you really did understand the balanced
version of the good gokmop's argument, at least subconsciously. The
reference to thirteen year olds was only meant to be representational,
not literal.
--
Paula
Persons with names like Sierra, Sequoia, Auburn, and Rainbow can't sing the Blues no matter how many men they shoot in Memphis.
John D Salt
[Snips]
> The irony that I am using Wiki an a canonical source to
> defend the claim that Wiki should not be considered a
> canonical source is not lost on me. MMM, YUMMY YUMMY IRONY.
Canonical source, shmanonical source.
> You might want to consider editing this article yourself,
> since you clearly disagree with the statement that Wikipedia
> contains no formal peer review process.
I suspect you are mistaken in thinking that people can't spot the
qualifier "formal" that has been oh-so-cunningly slipped in
there.
That the peer review process of wikipedia is not "formal", I have
already pointed out when I said that it lacked the administrative
garnish of an editorial board.
I'm afraid I still obstinately p[ersist in thinking that a
process whereby things are reviewed (pages edited on wikipedia)
by one's peers (other wiki-fiddlers) clearly qualifies as "peer
review".
I'm also finding it hard to understand why some wiki-knockers are
having such a hard time understanding that "peer review" is
review by peers.
So far, it seems, the reasons that have been offered or implied
for other sources of information to be preferred to wikipedia
are:
1. They are paid for with good green cash money.
2. They have an editorial board.
3. They are canonical, which means they are part of the canon.
4. They are part of the canon, which means they are canonical.
5. They are produced by people with clown hats.
Mostly these seem to correspond to arguments from authority,
although 1 is I suppose a form of argumentum ad crumenam, and 2
reminds me that we need a Latin phrase for the fallacy of
"thinking like a manager".
All the best,
John.
John D Salt
> John D Salt wrote:
>> The chief important difference between academe and wikidom,
>> as far as I can see, is that academics are forced to dress
>> up as clowns, in order that people should know how
>> seriously to take their pronouncements.
>
> If you truly believe this,
I've already pointed out that I don't know whether or not
wikidemics dress up as clowns while fiddling. Since my brane is
not so structurally enfeebled as to require supporting with
definite beliefs on all topics whether evidence is available or
not, I suspend my judgement on the matter.
Think - what would Montaigne have done?
> I understand completely why you
> think that Britannica, Wikipedia and Stickipedia (my
> all-new-Wiki composed by 5 yr-olds with pointy sticks
> scrawling in the mud) are equally valid.
If you really do "understand completely", then ISTM that you
should be easily capable of expressing what the essential
distinction is that makes Britannica worthwhile and Stickipedia
less so. What is it? It can't be the number of the brain-cells
of the contributors, because the five-year-olds have got the
others soundly beaten there.
> I lack the
> expertise to refute the claim that all people are equally
> qualified to comment on all areas of human knowledge.
Not only that, you lack even the expertise to correctly perceive
what claims people are actually making.
> On the other hand, according to that argument, I don't
> _need_ any special expertise to refute the claim, and my
> uninformed opinion is equally as valid as anyone elses, so I
> refute the claim with no further explanation necessary.
You're right, you don't need any special expertise. You do,
however, need to present an argument. You would have to present
an argument even if you did claim any special expertise.
Refutations cannot be done by diktat, they require argumentation.
This is something you have so far rather badly failed to provide.
What is the reason for why Britannica is better than Stickipedia?
Saying "It is because I say so" is a shite argument, with or
without expertise, with or without a clown hat.
Why should we mistrust arguments from authority?
Because I say so!
All the best,
John.
Mark Edwards
Dan Krueger <dankr...@mindspringxxx.com> wrote:
>> You are a sad individual. Get professional help...Now.
No cluons were harmed when Bryce Utting <but...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>the idea of mindless trolls spewing nonsense is one I've been long
>familiar with, but just why this one feels compelled to post *the
>contents of his own psych evaluation* is, frankly, beyond me.
IFYPFY
Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
Kevin S. Wilson
<but...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Dan Krueger <dankr...@mindspringxxx.com> wrote:
>> You are a sad individual. Get professional help...Now.
>
>the idea of mindless trolls spewing nonsense is one I've been long
>familiar with, but just why this one feels compelled to post *the
>contents of his own inbox* is, frankly, beyond me.
>
<snork>
Not to mention that it is perhaps the most obvious PKB ever posted to
the Usernet.
Kevin S. Wilson
<jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>Why should we mistrust arguments from authority?
>
>Because I say so!
That's a bit like the bumper sticker that says "Question Authority."
I've always imagined the sub-text to be "And do it now, or else!"
John D Salt
news:99taq1dhu1hs99r9c...@4ax.com:
Have I told you all about my favourite on-car inscription? Not
exactly a bumper-sticker, but rather some additional lettering on
somebody's licence-plate. When I used to drink in the Load of
Hay in Uxbridge, there was a Mercedes often to be seen in the car
park. At the bottom of the Mercedes' front licence-plate, in
tiny little letters, were the words "My other car is an
Armstrong-Siddeley".
All the best,
John.
John D Salt
news:Xns97309BF24CF2...@216.196.109.145:
> Have I told you all about my favourite on-car inscription?
Yes, I have.
All the best,
John.
Daniel Jackson
"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns97309BF24CF2...@216.196.109.145...
Ovuh heya, so close to all the sevices and their bases, guy in a convertable
,older mustang was pulling out of one the navy buildings on West Street,
Annapolis,. with a bumpersticker that read "my other car is an F-18".
Rose Marie Holt
Dan Krueger <dankr...@mindspringxxx.com> wrote:
Nah, we decided on St Michael's Cathedral. Should have grandeur!
Rose Marie Holt
<slrn-0.9.7.4-24092-...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au>,
TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2005-12-16, bar...@bookpro.com (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:39:58 -0500, Marc Goodman
> > <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>The second response is: the collaborative nature of the
> >>apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge,
> >>ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as
> >>dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I
> >>reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes
> >>the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed
> >>is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both
> >>exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I
> >>rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
> >
> > That reminds me. I looked up a long-ago boyfriend who who is now a
> > big-shot Republican warmonger. His Wikipedia entry mentions nothing
> > about some rather unsavory aspects of his past, and I am tempted to
> > fill in some of the gaps. But I don't have any idea how anonymous the
> > contributions are, and I don't want to be targeted by federal thugs,
> > or any other kind. So I'll probably leave it alone.
>
> You could always mail someone out of the country, and they could
> update it.
That's a lot of postage.
Marc Goodman
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:SJOdnXUuWb5...@newedgenetworks.com:
>
>>think that Britannica, Wikipedia and Stickipedia (my
>>all-new-Wiki composed by 5 yr-olds with pointy sticks
>>scrawling in the mud) are equally valid.
>
>
> If you really do "understand completely", then ISTM that you
> should be easily capable of expressing what the essential
> distinction is that makes Britannica worthwhile and Stickipedia
> less so. What is it? It can't be the number of the brain-cells
> of the contributors, because the five-year-olds have got the
> others soundly beaten there.
I'd love to sit down with you and spend the next three
months discussing epistemology [1] and why someone who has
been formally trained in a subject and then selected on
the basis of that training might have a higher claim to
knowledge on that topic then, say, Dan Krueger or the
idiot Penny Arcade fans who have been constantly revising
the Wiki article on Fancruft to say "bugger your mother," [2]
but in the end you'd still be a solipsist, you'd still deny
that authority exists, you'd still claim that stickipedia
and The New England Journal of Medicine are equally valid
references, and we'd be no better off than we are now [3].
You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
The entire web, including Wiki, when used in conjunction with
a comprehensive search index is better than Wiki, IMO.
On the web, the good information co-exists with the bad,
and the treatise authored by the Nobel Prize winning
physicist lives side-by-side with Norma's Knittery.
It is properly up to the reader to determine what to
trust and who to believe. It trades being "encyclopedic"
for being comprehensive. I personally don't find the
kind of "pre-chewing" they do on Wiki to be all that
helpful, and I think it will be even less helpful as
Wiki gets larger and entropy sets in. The web, on
the other hand, is already 3/4 rot, so HOW MUCH WORSE
can it get?
>> I lack the
>>expertise to refute the claim that all people are equally
>>qualified to comment on all areas of human knowledge.
>
>
> Not only that, you lack even the expertise to correctly perceive
> what claims people are actually making.
You're right. I already told you once that I didn't
know why you thought your argument was any more compelling than
a straw-man "there's no such thing as expertise, everything
is shit, therefore Wiki is at least as good as every other
reference source." Now that you've just repeated something
I've already admitted to, you could actually try explaining
why your argument is any more credible than that, or what
your claims actually are. Or, you could just point out
the SURPRISING NEWS that I don't understand what claim you're
making for at least the third time.
[1] And by "love to," I mean, "I'd rather slice my own eyeball
with a razor blade."
[2] Hundreds of revisions since Dec. 16th and counting.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fancruft&limit=500&action=history>
[3] Whereas, if you were convinced by my argument, we'd still
be no better than we are now, but at least we could move
on to a new topic.
Marc Goodman
> I'm also finding it hard to understand why some wiki-knockers are
> having such a hard time understanding that "peer review" is
> review by peers.
Those people may be your peers, but they're not mine.
All the Best,
-Marc
Kevin S. Wilson
Rose Marie, you do realize who you're talking to, right? Help him look
stupid in public and he'll soon be e-mailing your boss to complain
about you posting to the Usernet.
Oh, and he'll start keeping a Sooper Sekrit Dossier on you, filled
with posts that are already archived on goggle. This is somehow
supposed to bother you in some fashion; I haven't quite figured out
how, though.
Is St. Michael's the one on 8th and State? It's a nice church.
Kevin S. Wilson
Mail a midget.
Jeremy D. Impson
> "Marc Goodman" <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>>> Actually the article was so dumb I wasn't going to bother
>>> shredding it. I suppose it is good somebody did.
>>
>> By all means, let's return to the important discussion about
>> the best way to turn a Budweiser bottle into a bar-room
>> weapon. Hey, is there a Wiki article on this? Let's write
>> one!
>
> I haven't done my experimentation yet. You just can't
> go spreading broken glass nilly-willy. First I need
> to get my CSI lab certified. Do you have any idea how
> much stupid documentation it takes to get certified?
According to the charter, Wikipedia is not the place for original source
material. So oTTo will have to get published elsewhere, from which we can
plaigerise.
Seriously, what's the big deal? Take Wikipedia for what it is: the work
of tens of thousands of people who you don't know and who don't know each
other. It might be good information, it might be bad. Use it to satisfy
your curiosity, settle bar bets, or as a starting point for more research.
Don't use it for investment advice, brain surgery, or posting to USENET
(because on should ALWAYS check one's fact before posting to USENET).
--Jeremy
--
Jeremy Impson
jdimpson can be contacted at acm dot org
http://impson.tzo.com/~jdimpson
plorkwort
Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
IFYPFY.
plorkwort.
--
A girl and a boy bump into each other -- surely an accident.
A girl and a boy bump and her handkerchief drops -- surely another accident.
But when a girl gives a boy a dead squid -- *that had to mean something*.
-- S. Morganstern, "The Silent Gondoliers"
Marc Goodman
> In article <ztqdnbuKTPK...@newedgenetworks.com>,
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
>
> A real live trained librarian with access to print and online resources.
>
> IFYPFY.
>
> plorkwort.
SUBSCIRBE!
Jeremy D. Impson
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:jfCdnUjVRej...@newedgenetworks.com:
>
> [Snips]
>> You named a rather good mechanism yourself up above. Most reliable
>> references have some form of editorial review and/or moderation as well
>> as peer review.
>
> That is merely another form of peer review, but with the added
> administrative garnish of an editorial board.
>
> As far as I am aware, there is no rule to prevent any plooky 13-
> year-old with a keyboard (and, presumably, a gobbet of authoring [1]
> software) from starting his own academic journal in any subject he
> likes.
Case in point: SPIE. But man, the throw a good party.
Marc Goodman
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:04:26 +0000 (UTC), a...@TheWorld.com (plorkwort)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <ztqdnbuKTPK...@newedgenetworks.com>,
>>Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
>>
>>
>>IFYPFY.
>
>
> IFYPFY.
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121105A.shtml
>
> BW
IFMPFM. It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to.
Jeremy D. Impson
>
> "John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns97309BF24CF2...@216.196.109.145...
[..]
>> Have I told you all about my favourite on-car inscription? Not
>> exactly a bumper-sticker, but rather some additional lettering on
>> somebody's licence-plate. When I used to drink in the Load of
>> Hay in Uxbridge, there was a Mercedes often to be seen in the car
>> park. At the bottom of the Mercedes' front licence-plate, in
>> tiny little letters, were the words "My other car is an
>> Armstrong-Siddeley".
>>
> Ovuh heya, so close to all the sevices and their bases, guy in a convertable
> ,older mustang was pulling out of one the navy buildings on West Street,
> Annapolis,. with a bumpersticker that read "my other car is an F-18".
More than one "My Other Vehicle Is Unmanned" bumper stickers in the
parking lot where I work.
Mark Edwards
No cluons were harmed when "Jeremy D. Impson" <jdim...@acm.spam.org>
wrote:
>Don't use it for investment advice, brain surgery, or posting to
>USENET
>(because on should ALWAYS check one's fact before posting to
>USENET).
How about advice about brain surgery investments? Or simple
trepanning? Lobotomies? What about silicon brain-enlargement
strategies? And I don't see a thing here about brane condoms for
promiscuous zombies...
Besides, who's to say the facts have to be *accurate*?
John D Salt
[Snips]
> I'd love to sit down with you and spend the next three
> months discussing epistemology [1] and why someone who has
> been formally trained in a subject and then selected on
> the basis of that training might have a higher claim to
> knowledge on that topic then, say, Dan Krueger or the
> idiot Penny Arcade fans who have been constantly revising
> the Wiki article on Fancruft to say "bugger your mother,"
> [2] but in the end you'd still be a solipsist, you'd still
> deny that authority exists,
So, let's be clear, are you saying that you believe that the
argument from authority is not a fallacy?
> you'd still claim that
> stickipedia and The New England Journal of Medicine are
> equally valid references, and we'd be no better off than we
> are now [3].
As long as you continue to invent bollocks and ascribe it to me,
instead of making some sort of attempt at answering my questions,
you are right, you are unlikely ever to be any better off than
you are now. Why should this worry anyone, if it doesn't worry
you?
> You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
No, I don't believe I did. I can't find any trace of my having
done so, and I frankly don't give a flying fuck what you think is
better than Wiki. What I have asked, at least twice now, is what
distinguishing feature your preferred thingummyjigs have that
make them, in your quite staggeringly unhumble opinion, better
than Wiki. Could you answer this question now, please? Or say
you don't know?
> The entire web, including Wiki, when used in conjunction
> with a comprehensive search index is better than Wiki, IMO.
Obviously. And the Encyclopedia Britannica plus Ruff's Guide to
the Turf is better than either book alone. So what? This still
fails to address what the distinguishing feature is, it merely
adds bulk.
> On the web, the good information co-exists with the bad,
> and the treatise authored by the Nobel Prize winning
> physicist lives side-by-side with Norma's Knittery.
> It is properly up to the reader to determine what to
> trust and who to believe.
And how is this different for knowledge obtained from any other
source whatsoever?
> It trades being "encyclopedic"
> for being comprehensive.
I wonder what distinction between the two terms you intend?
>>> I lack the
>>>expertise to refute the claim that all people are equally
>>>qualified to comment on all areas of human knowledge.
>>
>> Not only that, you lack even the expertise to correctly
>> perceive what claims people are actually making.
>
> You're right. I already told you once that I didn't
> know why you thought your argument was any more compelling
> than a straw-man "there's no such thing as expertise,
> everything is shit, therefore Wiki is at least as good as
> every other reference source." Now that you've just
> repeated something I've already admitted to, you could
> actually try explaining why your argument is any more
> credible than that, or what your claims actually are. Or,
> you could just point out the SURPRISING NEWS that I don't
> understand what claim you're making for at least the third
> time.
I don't think there is any essential difference in the processes
used to arrange and publish knowledge in Wilipedia from those
used elsewhere. It's not a particularly daring hypothesis, and
it could easily be refuted by pointing out one such essential
difference. This you seem unable to do, while being apparently
quite adamant that it is outrageous, false, ridiculous, etc.
> [3] Whereas, if you were convinced by my argument, we'd
> still be no better than we are now, but at least we could
> move on to a new topic.
Ah, but for me to be convinced by your argument, you have to
present one. All I've seen so far is a bunch of assertions.
All the best,
John.
John D Salt
Ah, so the distinguishing feature that makes your preferred
sources of knowledge better than Wikipedia is snobbery. Thanks
for clearing that up.
All the best,
John.
Marc Goodman
> So, let's be clear, are you saying that you believe that the
> argument from authority is not a fallacy?
No. I'm saying that an expert on quantum physics is more
likely to compose a reasonably correct article on quantum
physics than a roomful of monkeys. And, given that I personally
don't know very much about quantum physics, I'm personally
a lot more likely to believe incorrect garbage if I read
an article written by a roomful of monkeys than I am
if I read an article written by an expert on the topic.
The argumentum ad verecundiam, as I understand it, is that
you should believe what an expert says simply because he
or she says it. It's better to apply your critical thinking
skills to making that determination than to rely solely on
authority, but critical thinking skills are sometimes a
luxury given limited time and expertise on the Entire
Breadth of Human Knowledge.
Since you seem to want me to state it outright, I believe
that experts are more qualified than lay people to speak
on the topics they are experts on.
>>you'd still claim that
>>stickipedia and The New England Journal of Medicine are
>>equally valid references, and we'd be no better off than we
>>are now [3].
>
>
> As long as you continue to invent bollocks and ascribe it to me,
> instead of making some sort of attempt at answering my questions,
> you are right, you are unlikely ever to be any better off than
> you are now. Why should this worry anyone, if it doesn't worry
> you?
I've said I think experts are more qualified than lay
people to write about the subjects they are expert on. Are
you willing to say they are _not_ more qualified? If not,
why not? Your theories on education and the lack of need
for same could REVOLUTIONIZE the academic system.
>>You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
>
>
> No, I don't believe I did. I can't find any trace of my having
> done so, and I frankly don't give a flying fuck what you think is
> better than Wiki. What I have asked, at least twice now, is what
> distinguishing feature your preferred thingummyjigs have that
> make them, in your quite staggeringly unhumble opinion, better
> than Wiki.
They're written by people who know the difference between
their ass and a hole in the ground.
> Could you answer this question now, please? Or say
> you don't know?
Have I answered your question yet?
>>The entire web, including Wiki, when used in conjunction
>>with a comprehensive search index is better than Wiki, IMO.
>
>
> Obviously. And the Encyclopedia Britannica plus Ruff's Guide to
> the Turf is better than either book alone. So what? This still
> fails to address what the distinguishing feature is, it merely
> adds bulk.
The web as a whole has no pretension to authority. One approaches
the web as a vast sea of information mixed liberally with bullshit.
It's buyer beware. On the other hand, Wiki is at least attempting
to present the "truth," and has to be held to a higher standard for
that very reason. From what I see, by the nature of the theories
underlying its creation (collaborative, democratic, with no privileged
frame of reference or acknowledgment of expertise), its ONTOLOGY,
precludes achieving its goal of reliability.
>>On the web, the good information co-exists with the bad,
>>and the treatise authored by the Nobel Prize winning
>>physicist lives side-by-side with Norma's Knittery.
>>It is properly up to the reader to determine what to
>>trust and who to believe.
>
>
> And how is this different for knowledge obtained from any other
> source whatsoever?
If I claim to be an expert on AI, I should be held to a higher
standard than someone who claims to be a layperson. And, I
should get beaten up a lot worse if I start spreading bullshit.
>>It trades being "encyclopedic"
>>for being comprehensive.
>
>
> I wonder what distinction between the two terms you intend?
The original genesis of this discussion is a perfect example.
The author of the article added something to Wiki that was
considered "fancruft," i.e., possibly correct but of such
special interest that it doesn't qualify as "encyclopedic"
in the opinion of the Wiki community. Such material lives
on the web perfectly happily, and people link to it/view it
based only on their level of interest. That's why I claim
the web is comprehensive rather than "encyclopedic" in the
sense that the "Wiki community" uses the term. Don't ask
me to define that, because I don't think there is a good
hard-and-fast definition, which is why I think it's a bullshit
criteria in the first place.
> I don't think there is any essential difference in the processes
> used to arrange and publish knowledge in Wilipedia from those
> used elsewhere. It's not a particularly daring hypothesis, and
> it could easily be refuted by pointing out one such essential
> difference. This you seem unable to do, while being apparently
> quite adamant that it is outrageous, false, ridiculous, etc.
Two different processes:
1). I submit an article to a journal for publication. It is reviewed
by experts in my field. Based on their comments, the article is
either rejected outright, revised to deal with their criticisms, or
published as-is. When it's published, it exists in static form and
is not subject to some ass-hat with a crayon scrawling all over it.
Well, they can scrawl over THEIR copy, but they can't scrawl over all
the copies in the world.
2). I add a page to my website that people can read or link to if
they like it. If they don't like it, they can just go somewhere
else and find a page or set of pages they do like.
Both of these models have advantages and disadvantages to the Wiki
model. I wouldn't characterize them as lacking "essential differences."
>>[3] Whereas, if you were convinced by my argument, we'd
>>still be no better than we are now, but at least we could
>>move on to a new topic.
>
>
> Ah, but for me to be convinced by your argument, you have to
> present one. All I've seen so far is a bunch of assertions.
Hey! Me too!
Marc Goodman
> Ah, so the distinguishing feature that makes your preferred
> sources of knowledge better than Wikipedia is snobbery. Thanks
> for clearing that up.
I don't feel bad for seeming like a snob. I'd rather eat
a nice chicken tikka masala than a big steaming bowl of
dog turds, just as I'd much rather read something John Salt
wrote than something Dan Krueger wrote. Not all things in
the universe are equal. If that makes me a snob, then I
wear the label proudly.
John D Salt
[Snips]
> The argumentum ad verecundiam, as I understand it, is that
> you should believe what an expert says simply because he
> or she says it. It's better to apply your critical thinking
> skills to making that determination than to rely solely on
> authority, but critical thinking skills are sometimes a
> luxury given limited time and expertise on the Entire
> Breadth of Human Knowledge.
See, I don't think critical thinking is ever a luxury, if only to
avoid having 17.5% VAT levied on it.
[Snips]
> I've said I think experts are more qualified than lay
> people to write about the subjects they are expert on. Are
> you willing to say they are _not_ more qualified? If not,
> why not? Your theories on education and the lack of need
> for same could REVOLUTIONIZE the academic system.
Aren't you just slightly worried at conflating expertise,
qualification and education into one great big lump?
And how, exactly, do you get to a lack of need for education from
any utterance I've ever made in my entire life?
Show your working, writing on one side of the paper at a time.
>> No, I don't believe I did. I can't find any trace of my
>> having done so, and I frankly don't give a flying fuck what
>> you think is better than Wiki. What I have asked, at least
>> twice now, is what distinguishing feature your preferred
>> thingummyjigs have that make them, in your quite
>> staggeringly unhumble opinion, better than Wiki.
>
> They're written by people who know the difference between
> their ass and a hole in the ground.
>
>> Could you answer this question now, please? Or say you
>> don't know?
>
> Have I answered your question yet?
You seem to think that something is better than something else
because it is just better. I feel inclined to take that as a
"don't know".
[Snips]
> The web as a whole has no pretension to authority.
Where does Wikipedia claim authority?
[Snips]
>> And how is this different for knowledge obtained from any
>> other source whatsoever?
>
> If I claim to be an expert on AI, I should be held to a
> higher standard than someone who claims to be a layperson.
> And, I should get beaten up a lot worse if I start spreading
> bullshit.
Most people who are really experts don't, in my experience, spend
a great deal of time trumpeting about their expertise.
Indeed Prof. Heinz Wolff, who is a considerable expert on a very
great deal of stuff, and founder of the discipline of bio-
engineering, gave a lecture I attended in which he wore a clown
hat, as a reminder of how authoritative we should consider his
statements.
> Two different processes:
>
> 1). I submit an article to a journal for publication. It is
> reviewed by experts in my field. Based on their comments,
> the article is either rejected outright, revised to deal
> with their criticisms, or published as-is. When it's
> published, it exists in static form and is not subject to
> some ass-hat with a crayon scrawling all over it. Well, they
> can scrawl over THEIR copy, but they can't scrawl over all
> the copies in the world.
>
> 2). I add a page to my website that people can read or link
> to if they like it. If they don't like it, they can just go
> somewhere else and find a page or set of pages they do like.
>
> Both of these models have advantages and disadvantages to
> the Wiki model. I wouldn't characterize them as lacking
> "essential differences."
So you are claiming that the hallmark of expertise is the
impossibility of revision? How very odd.
[Snips]
>> Ah, but for me to be convinced by your argument, you have
>> to present one. All I've seen so far is a bunch of
>> assertions.
>
> Hey! Me too!
So, you really can't tell the difference between an assertion and
a question?
All the best,
John.
Mark Edwards
I don't get it. When I have to pee, I don't want people reviewing it.
Besides, what are they reviewing?
Content - what's in your pee? "Roger, I give this pee two thumbs up,
for its captivating fragrance and asparagusy aftertaste."
Accuracy - whether you missed the seat? Missed the toilet? Can spell
the Queen Mother's name in the snow?
Adds something new to the literature? "We have never seen ANYONE do
THAT with a salad shooter, whipped cream and a full bladder!"
Technique - ability to tie your peanus into a moebius loop during pee
collection?
Seems to me that having someone review the peers is likely to be
tedious, time consuming and an invasion of privacy.
Marc Goodman
> See, I don't think critical thinking is ever a luxury, if only to
> avoid having 17.5% VAT levied on it.
How do you recommend that the average internet user critically
evaluate an article on a topic they have no expertise on?
>>I've said I think experts are more qualified than lay
>>people to write about the subjects they are expert on. Are
>>you willing to say they are _not_ more qualified? If not,
>>why not? Your theories on education and the lack of need
>>for same could REVOLUTIONIZE the academic system.
>
>
> Aren't you just slightly worried at conflating expertise,
> qualification and education into one great big lump?
Not particularly. Why are you? What is this axe you're
grinding about Academe, anyway? Did a Ph.D. kill your
kitten, or something?
> And how, exactly, do you get to a lack of need for education from
> any utterance I've ever made in my entire life?
Do you believe that all people are equally qualified to write
Wiki articles? If so, then would someone with no education be
equally qualified as someone with education? If not, then
why do you think that someone with education wouldn't be
more qualified to write an article for Wikipedia than someone
without education?
>>The web as a whole has no pretension to authority.
>
>
> Where does Wikipedia claim authority?
If you don't believe that Wiki has any claims to authority, then
why do you find it questionable when I claim that Wiki lacks
authority? Or, alternatively, if you agree that Wiki lacks
authority, then what exactly are you defending about it?
> Most people who are really experts don't, in my experience, spend
> a great deal of time trumpeting about their expertise.
Don't a lot of people pretend to be experts on one topic or another,
though? Don't you find it irresistable to pop such people like
balloons? Real experts seldom need to claim expertise, but ass-hats
seem to do it quite a lot. Some of them even show off their
"expertise" by writing Wiki articles for the "benefit" of all
mankind.
John Salt wrote in <Xns9730DA81A292...@216.196.109.145>:
> I don't think there is any essential difference in the processes
> used to arrange and publish knowledge in Wilipedia from those
> used elsewhere. It's not a particularly daring hypothesis, and
> it could easily be refuted by pointing out one such essential
> difference. This you seem unable to do, while being apparently
> quite adamant that it is outrageous, false, ridiculous, etc.
>>[...] Both of these models have advantages and disadvantages to
>>the Wiki model. I wouldn't characterize them as lacking
>>"essential differences."
>
>
> So you are claiming that the hallmark of expertise is the
> impossibility of revision? How very odd.
Don't you think context can be important? Didn't you just
say that you didn't think there was any essential difference
between the processes used to arrange and publish knowledge
in Wilipedia [sic] and those used elsewhere? Didn't you
state that this could be easily refuted by pointing out
one such essential difference? Didn't I give you two
examples of models of publication that had essential
differences to the Wiki model?
Do you see me claiming that the impossibility of revision
is the hallmark of expertise? For that matter, do you
see me claiming that the impossibility of revision is low
in carbohydrates, makes a great fuel substitute, and looks
great on television?
However, I will add that removing the possibility of
_anonymous_ revision makes someone accountable for their
words. If someone goes on record making claims that are
later proven false, that person's credibility becomes suspect
(in addition to other possibly more nasty consequences).
That tends to "keep people honest" about their claims.
I like having people "on the record," so they can be
pinned-down later, if need be, don't you?
> So, you really can't tell the difference between an assertion and
> a question?
Can you tell the difference between a rhetorical question
standing in for an assertion, and a direct statement? Do
you think it's braver to stand up and speak out on a postition
that's unpopular, or to never commit yourself to a concrete
position?
Circle of Iron:
Cord: Why must you answer every question with a question?
The Blind Man: Why must you question every answer?
Dan Krueger
>
>
> Rose Marie, you do realize who you're talking to, right? Help him look
> stupid in public and he'll soon be e-mailing your boss to complain
> about you posting to the Usernet.
>
> Oh, and he'll start keeping a Sooper Sekrit Dossier on you, filled
> with posts that are already archived on goggle. This is somehow
> supposed to bother you in some fashion; I haven't quite figured out
> how, though.
>
> Is St. Michael's the one on 8th and State? It's a nice church.
>
I have been advised not to respond directly to certain posts, but it is
simple common sense that if you have nothing to hide, and your posts
don't contain libel or harassment, you have nothing to fear.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> And how is this different for knowledge obtained from any other
>> source whatsoever?
>
> If I claim to be an expert on AI, I should be held to a higher
> standard than someone who claims to be a layperson. And, I
> should get beaten up a lot worse if I start spreading bullshit.
In your perfect world, AI experts aren't allowed to enter into the
field of farming?
Harsh, but necessary.
--
TimC
A mouse is a device used to focus xterms.
Marc Goodman
> On 2005-12-18, Marc Goodman (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>standard than someone who claims to be a layperson. And, I
>>should get beaten up a lot worse if I start spreading bullshit.
>
>
> In your perfect world, AI experts aren't allowed to enter into the
> field of farming?
>
> Harsh, but necessary.
>
There are plenty of organic composts that make excellent
fertilizer for use by (or on) AI experts. And, I never said they
weren't allowed to use bullshit, I just said they should
be beaten up for it more than non-AI experts.
Come to think of it, judging by all the AI experts I know,
I can state that AI experts should be beaten up a lot worse
than laypeople regardless of their farming proclivities.
It wouldn't take me more than 5 minutes to come up with
a list of the top ten AI experts I'd personally love to
pummel.
John D Salt
> John D Salt wrote:
>> See, I don't think critical thinking is ever a luxury, if
>> only to avoid having 17.5% VAT levied on it.
>
> How do you recommend that the average internet user
> critically evaluate an article on a topic they have no
> expertise on?
By seeing whether the article is logically self-consistent, and
whether it agrees with what they believe to be true from their
expertise in other areas.
Why do you imagine the practice of critical thinking should be
confined only to areas in which one has "expertise"?
>> Aren't you just slightly worried at conflating expertise,
>> qualification and education into one great big lump?
>
> Not particularly. Why are you?
Because failure to distinguish them is harmfully stupid. You can
be educated without being qualified. You can be qualified
without being either educated or expert. You can be expert
without being either educated or qualified.
> What is this axe you're
> grinding about Academe, anyway? Did a Ph.D. kill your
> kitten, or something?
I'm not grinding any axe about academe, I'm merely using it as an
example for comparison because it happens to be something I have
some first-hand experience of. It's one of my areas of
expertise, if you like.
>> And how, exactly, do you get to a lack of need for
>> education from any utterance I've ever made in my entire
>> life?
>
> Do you believe that all people are equally qualified to
> write Wiki articles? If so, then would someone with no
> education be equally qualified as someone with education?
> If not, then why do you think that someone with education
> wouldn't be more qualified to write an article for Wikipedia
> than someone without education?
I see the distinction between experise, qualification and
education continues to elude you.
>>>The web as a whole has no pretension to authority.
>>
>> Where does Wikipedia claim authority?
>
> If you don't believe that Wiki has any claims to authority,
> then why do you find it questionable when I claim that Wiki
> lacks authority?
So you admit that the quality you see in sources preferable to
Wikipedia is "authority"? Shades of Cartman.
> Or, alternatively, if you agree that Wiki
> lacks authority, then what exactly are you defending about
> it?
I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm attacking its attackers, who
appear to be hazardously clueless.
[Snips]
>> So you are claiming that the hallmark of expertise is the
>> impossibility of revision? How very odd.
>
> Didn't you just
> say that you didn't think there was any essential difference
> between the processes used to arrange and publish knowledge
> in Wilipedia [sic] and those used elsewhere? Didn't you
> state that this could be easily refuted by pointing out
> one such essential difference? Didn't I give you two
> examples of models of publication that had essential
> differences to the Wiki model?
But not that made them clearly preferable, which was the question
I was trying to get you to answer. Or don't you think that
context can be important?
> Do you see me claiming that the impossibility of revision
> is the hallmark of expertise?
I see it being an ineluctable consequence of what appears to be
your position, if you are claiming that the two examples of
different models you cited are in some way prefereable to the
Wiki way. If you do not so claim, them you still haven't quite
got round to answering my question.
[Snips]
>> So, you really can't tell the difference between an
>> assertion and a question?
>
> Can you tell the difference between a rhetorical question
> standing in for an assertion, and a direct statement?
Ah, I infer from this that you can't.
> Do
> you think it's braver to stand up and speak out on a
> postition that's unpopular, or to never commit yourself to a
> concrete position?
What would Montaigne have done?
All the best,
John.
Marc Goodman
> Why do you imagine the practice of critical thinking should be
> confined only to areas in which one has "expertise"?
Why do you imagine that I've ever made such a claim or hold such
a belief?
>>>Aren't you just slightly worried at conflating expertise,
>>>qualification and education into one great big lump?
>>
>>Not particularly. Why are you?
>
>
> Because failure to distinguish them is harmfully stupid. You can
> be educated without being qualified. You can be qualified
> without being either educated or expert. You can be expert
> without being either educated or qualified.
Yeah? You can be expert without being educated or qualified?
Praytell, how?
> I'm not grinding any axe about academe, I'm merely using it as an
> example for comparison because it happens to be something I have
> some first-hand experience of. It's one of my areas of
> expertise, if you like.
I don't believe your experience qualifies you as an expert.
You were right! There is a difference between experience,
expertise and qualification!
>>>And how, exactly, do you get to a lack of need for
>>>education from any utterance I've ever made in my entire
>>>life?
>>
>>Do you believe that all people are equally qualified to
>>write Wiki articles? If so, then would someone with no
>>education be equally qualified as someone with education?
>>If not, then why do you think that someone with education
>>wouldn't be more qualified to write an article for Wikipedia
>>than someone without education?
>
>
> I see the distinction between experise, qualification and
> education continues to elude you.
I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no" answer?
>>>>The web as a whole has no pretension to authority.
>>>
>>>Where does Wikipedia claim authority?
>>
>>If you don't believe that Wiki has any claims to authority,
>>then why do you find it questionable when I claim that Wiki
>>lacks authority?
>
>
> So you admit that the quality you see in sources preferable to
> Wikipedia is "authority"? Shades of Cartman.
I just said I thought comprehensiveness made the web preferable
to Wiki, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten that.
Also, I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in there.
>>Or, alternatively, if you agree that Wiki
>>lacks authority, then what exactly are you defending about
>>it?
>
>
> I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm attacking its attackers, who
> appear to be hazardously clueless.
So, basically, you're arguing for arguments sake, without having
any particular belief on the subject at hand. Is that a fair
characterization?
>>>So you are claiming that the hallmark of expertise is the
>>>impossibility of revision? How very odd.
>>
>>Didn't you just
>>say that you didn't think there was any essential difference
>>between the processes used to arrange and publish knowledge
>>in Wilipedia [sic] and those used elsewhere? Didn't you
>>state that this could be easily refuted by pointing out
>>one such essential difference? Didn't I give you two
>>examples of models of publication that had essential
>>differences to the Wiki model?
>
>
> But not that made them clearly preferable, which was the question
> I was trying to get you to answer. Or don't you think that
> context can be important?
You didn't say they had to be "preferable," you just said
they had to be essentially different. Would you care to
restate your question now?
>>Do you see me claiming that the impossibility of revision
>>is the hallmark of expertise?
>
>
> I see it being an ineluctable consequence of what appears to be
> your position, if you are claiming that the two examples of
> different models you cited are in some way prefereable to the
> Wiki way. If you do not so claim, them you still haven't quite
> got round to answering my question.
You mean you've made an incorrect inference, and rather than
having the intellectual honesty to admit that your inference
was wrong, you're now trying to change the subject. Got it.
> [Snips]
>
>>>So, you really can't tell the difference between an
>>>assertion and a question?
>>
>>Can you tell the difference between a rhetorical question
>>standing in for an assertion, and a direct statement?
>
>
> Ah, I infer from this that you can't.
Once again, demonstrating your lack of ability to arrive
at correct inferences.
Cheers!
David DeLaney
>Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
>A real live trained librarian with access to print and online resources.
Plorkwort wins. FATALITY.
>IFYPFY.
You fatalitied his ___BLANK___ for him?
Dave "sure, Wiki has animated gifs, but come on now" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
James Kibo Parry
>
> Marc Goodman (marc.g...@comcast.net) wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
>
> A real live trained librarian with access to print and online resources.
Dude, that's not fair. You've got a roomful of people arguing about
whether McDonalds or Burger King has the best food and you gotta blow
through waving a Chatta Box menu over your head. You get one point for
being sensible, but minus one point for being so sensible that
you make people who aren't as sensible as you seem not as sensible
as you. So that gives you a net balance of zero points, which I
will hold in escrow until you take me to Chatta Box for a Golden Banana.
Also you can help me figure out which disturbs me more, the really
bad painting of antique sports memorabilia over the toilet (the
perspective is from the ninth dimension, the golf ball has the
dimples tessellated wrongly, objects aren't to scale, etc.) or the
plastic starfruit tree outside the men's room (seriously, if you're
shopping for a plastic tree, who ever says "I think it should be a
plastic _starfruit_ tree!"?)
-- K.
Oh, and by the way, the Encyclopedia Britannica sucks, and the
Boston Public Library sucks, but that doesn't mean the Boston Public
Library would become good if they burned their Encyclopedia Britannica.
They'd become good if they did something that made Don Saklad fall
out of his chair in an amusing way.
Both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica are just like
the "...for Dummies" books except they don't even admit that
only a dummy would ever need to look anything up. Me, I was
born with all the trivia I'll ever need, in accordance with
Plato's Ninth Paradigm Of Cosmic Knowledge, which he first
stated in "Blivtheria Marginalis Ex Smarto" in 4932 BC.
-- K.
The extra "K."
is just to
throw you off.
Mark South
> Rose Marie Holt wrote:
>> Subtract from Cart! Posting to ark is the best thing I do somedays.
>> And if someone on ark gets me laughing out loud, that is something you
>> cant buy or work hard for.
>
> Oh, I agree. I was just mocking the idea that writing articles for Wikipedia
> is a waste of time.
Well, since you can spend years researching an article, write it on
WikiPedia, and then have it deleted, altered, or otherwise overwritten by
some pimply twerps with IQs lower than that of Dank, even...ummm, yes, it
is a *total* waste of time.
At least those nice people at dejanews store our crappy
postings^W^Wcollective wisdom unadulterated for all time.
--
mark south: world citizen, net denizen
echo znexfb...@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m
"Take it? I can't even parse it!" - Kibo, in ARK
Mark South
> Well I don't know what "fundamental issues" is supposed to mean,
> unless it is something that issues from the fundament.
He means "fundamental issues" in the sense of "osculare fundamentum meum".
EDITOR'S NOTE: This Usernet[TM] Article has been peer reviewed by several
plooky 13-year old boys, and edited accordingly for the sake of academic
quality.
Mark South
> In article <ztqdnbuKTPK...@newedgenetworks.com>,
> Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
> A real live naked librarian with access to print and online resources.
>
> IFYPFY.
>
> plorkwort.
And IF*Y*PFY!
Mark South
> You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
> The entire web, including Wiki, when used in conjunction with
> a comprehensive search index is better than Wiki, IMO.
> On the web, the good information co-exists with the bad,
> and the treatise authored by the Nobel Prize winning
> physicist lives side-by-side with Norma's Knittery.
BTW Marc, you may enjoy the result of googling for
"Gupta+fossil+himalaya".
Bryce Utting
> a...@TheWorld.com (plorkwort) wrote:
>>Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>You asked me before what I thought was better than Wiki:
>>
>>and online resources.
>
> IFYPFY.
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121105A.shtml
: "While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists
: benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us,"
: read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified
: F.B.I. official. "This should be an OIPR priority!!!"
DAMN STRAIGHT! getting radical militant librarians to kick the FBI
around should be OIPR's *top* priority!
I for one welcome this unexpected outbreak of sanity in the US
intelligence circus.
butting
--
I am very new to programming drivers so if I sound un-knowledgeable
then it's because I am.
-- first4internet's Ceri Coburn on writing Sony's DRM rootkit
John D Salt
> John D Salt wrote:
>> Why do you imagine the practice of critical thinking should
>> be confined only to areas in which one has "expertise"?
>
> Why do you imagine that I've ever made such a claim or hold
> such a belief?
I deduce it from the statement "critical thinking skills are
sometimes a luxury given limited time and expertise on the Entire
Breadth of Human Knowledge" and the question "How do you
recommend that the average internet user critically evaluate an
article on a topic they have no expertise on?". Why you would
have asked such a question unless you believed that subject
expertise was a requirement for critical thinking is beyond me.
> Yeah? You can be expert without being educated or
> qualified? Praytell, how?
This is such a long-established observation that it has been
enshrined in the Latin tag "Poeta nascitur, non fit". Do you
agree that it is possible to be expert without being educated or
qualified, or do you deny the existence of such a thing as
natural talent?
>> I'm not grinding any axe about academe, I'm merely using it
>> as an example for comparison because it happens to be
>> something I have some first-hand experience of. It's one
>> of my areas of expertise, if you like.
>
> I don't believe your experience qualifies you as an expert.
Just as you like.
> You were right! There is a difference between experience,
> expertise and qualification!
Actually, the fact that they are entirely different words is
often a clue that they have different meanings.
[Snips]
>> I see the distinction between experise, qualification and
>> education continues to elude you.
>
> I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no" answer?
No, it wasn't.
[Snips]
>> So you admit that the quality you see in sources preferable
>> to Wikipedia is "authority"? Shades of Cartman.
>
> I just said I thought comprehensiveness made the web
> preferable to Wiki, but you seem to have conveniently
> forgotten that.
I haven't forgotten it at all. I also recall giving my reason
for finding it unutterably daft, but you seem to have, &c.
> Also, I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in
> there.
Nor I. Obviously I am going to have to borrow a security
officer's hat from someone.
[Snips]
> So, basically, you're arguing for arguments sake,
That's a perfectly respectable pastime in civilised parts of the
world. But I also like to drive out the Demon Error when I find
him stalking the land, seeking whom he may devour.
> without
> having any particular belief on the subject at hand.
I find it's usually preferable to argue over things on which one
does not have particular beliefs, or at least pretends not to.
That way, there is some chance of someone being swayed by a line
of argument, and people don't start getting hysterical as if
you'd tried to touch their dick when you stamp on their
particular beliefs.
[Snips]
>>>Didn't I give you two examples of models of publication
>>>that had essential differences to the Wiki model?
>>
>> But not that made them clearly preferable, which was the
>> question I was trying to get you to answer. Or don't you
>> think that context can be important?
>
> You didn't say they had to be "preferable," you just said
> they had to be essentially different. Would you care to
> restate your question now?
OK, here goes:
"...you should be easily capable of expressing what the essential
distinction is that makes Britannica worthwhile and Stickipedia
less so. What is it?"
Those are the exact words I used before. Apologies is my elision
of "preferable" and "more worthwhile" caused some lack of
clarity.
>>>Do you see me claiming that the impossibility of revision
>>>is the hallmark of expertise?
>>
>> I see it being an ineluctable consequence of what appears
>> to be your position, if you are claiming that the two
>> examples of different models you cited are in some way
>> prefereable to the Wiki way. If you do not so claim, them
>> you still haven't quite got round to answering my
>> question.
>
> You mean you've made an incorrect inference,
Well, no, oddly, because had that been what I meant, it would
have been what I said. The inference seems perfectly sound; the
premise may be wrong, in that you are not claiming the two models
are preferable, due to your mysteriously not having grasped my
question.
>>>>So, you really can't tell the difference between an
>>>>assertion and a question?
>>>
>>>Can you tell the difference between a rhetorical question
>>>standing in for an assertion, and a direct statement?
>>
>> Ah, I infer from this that you can't.
>
> Once again, demonstrating your lack of ability to arrive
> at correct inferences.
So, you're saying you have not mistaken some of questions for
assertions? What conceivable motivation could you have had for
posing your question in reply, in that case?
All the best,
John.
Kevin S. Wilson
<marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>It wouldn't take me more than 5 minutes to come up with
>a list of the top ten AI experts I'd personally love to
>pummel.
IFY . . . nah, too easy.
Otto Bahn
> Things haven't been helped by the drenching of practically all
> froups since the invasion of Iraq
^^^^
IBYM: "AOL".
September 43v3r.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
sharing this with you, that I only go to Wikipedia when a
Yahoogle search takes me there.
ARK is a peer reviewed journal too. Post something stupid,
and we'll rip you a new orafice which will then say, "YHBT".
Somebody should add a link on Wikipedia to the entry for
"irony" and have it point to this thread on Google. And then
Britannica could have an entry for "Troll" which points to
Wikipedia pointing to ARK. Google should then add an "I'm
feeling Kibo today" button that goes to the post on ARK that
best references your keywords.
And so just for the hell of it, I searched on "Kibo" on Yahoo
and it was kinda boring. Wikipedia's entry did come up fourth.
Then I tried "Tamara", which was oddly disturbing. Apparently
from the first ten hits alone she is:
1) A newborn cabbage patch doll on Ebay.
2) A singer/band on Amazon.
2) Art Deco's number one painter.
3) A bloody horror movie with a bad plot.
4) "A journal for critical postmodern organization...one that
combines critical theory as well as postmodern theory and
postcolonial theory and critical pedagogy with praxis."
4a) A postmodern play where the audience follows actors around
to various sets as they see fit.
5) Anti-stealth radar from the Tesla company in the Czech
Republic.
6) A Hawt Wresting Vixxen. This is the point where I got
distracted.
I think that kicks Kibo's ass.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
>>> I haven't done my experimentation yet. You just can't
>>> go spreading broken glass nilly-willy. First I need
>>> to get my CSI lab certified. Do you have any idea how
>>> much stupid documentation it takes to get certified?
>>>
>>> I'll probably just end up doing it on my driveway
>>> instead.
>>
>> Fuck that, I was just going to post it as the truth
>> and let someone else decide if it was right or not.
>> Or, I could just say, "According to a friend of a friend..."
>
> Done. We secretly replaced this man's Folger's Crystals
> with real fresh-brewed coffee. Let's see what happens.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bilestoad>
A bar fight? At Georgia Tech? Maybe Holkins *was*
onto something.
--oTTo--
Rose Marie Holt
Kevin S. Wilson <res...@spro.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:05:02 GMT, Rose Marie Holt
> <rmh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <e04pf.4022$n1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Dan Krueger <dankr...@mindspringxxx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Rose Marie Holt wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <L8Kof.3630$n1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >> > Dan Krueger <dankr...@mindspringxxx.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>The same bozos "use" Wikipedia as the ones who post (follow) ARK as some
> >> >>lame-ass cult religion.
> >> >>
> >> >>Earl
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure I dont do that. It;s j\ust that without Kiibology, I would
> >> > have nomeaning in my life.
> >> >
> >> > I know I dont use Wikipedia.
> >> >
> >> > And it is sad that this Hmas season, I have no church in the area I will
> >> > be in that I want to go to. My home church is moving out of the parish
> >> > hall into the stone building that was damaged in ought too by the
> >> > earthquake, and I'll be in some punk ass church that either doesnt know
> >> > how to do it up right or which is full of people who are really not my
> >> > idea of people I llike to be around on the holiday. Especially if there
> >> > is going to be singing.
> >>
> >> You are a sad individual. Get professional help...Now.
> >
> >Nah, we decided on St Michael's Cathedral. Should have grandeur!
>
> Rose Marie, you do realize who you're talking to, right? Help him look
> stupid in public and he'll soon be e-mailing your boss to complain
> about you posting to the Usernet.
>
> Oh, and he'll start keeping a Sooper Sekrit Dossier on you, filled
> with posts that are already archived on goggle. This is somehow
> supposed to bother you in some fashion; I haven't quite figured out
> how, though.
>
> Is St. Michael's the one on 8th and State? It's a nice church.
Yes and yes. And I am already getting professional help, and my
employers already know I'm a sad individual.
I DEFY ANYONE TO DO MORE DAMAGE TO ME THAT I DO TO MYSELF!