A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source
303
Tower too. Seems the anti-cabal, anti-corporatist anti-wikipedians are
everywhere:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?_r=3&oref=s
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source
Article Tools Sponsored By
By NOAM COHEN
Published: February 21, 2007
When half a dozen students in Neil Waters’s Japanese history class at
Middlebury College asserted on exams that the Jesuits supported the
Shimabara Rebellion in 17th-century Japan, he knew something was
wrong. The Jesuits were in “no position to aid a revolution,” he said;
the few of them in Japan were in hiding.
He figured out the problem soon enough. The obscure, though incorrect,
information was from Wikipedia, the collaborative online encyclopedia,
and the students had picked it up cramming for his exam.
Dr. Waters and other professors in the history department had begun
noticing about a year ago that students were citing Wikipedia as a
source in their papers. When confronted, many would say that their
high school teachers had allowed the practice.
But the errors on the Japanese history test last semester were the
last straw. At Dr. Waters’s urging, the Middlebury history department
notified its students this month that Wikipedia could not be cited in
papers or exams, and that students could not “point to Wikipedia or
any similar source that may appear in the future to escape the
consequences of errors.”
With the move, Middlebury, in Vermont, jumped into a growing debate
within journalism, the law and academia over what respect, if any, to
give Wikipedia articles, written by hundreds of volunteers and subject
to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Wikipedia itself has
restricted the editing of some subjects, mostly because of repeated
vandalism or disputes over what should be said.
Although Middlebury’s history department has banned Wikipedia in
citations, it has not banned its use. Don Wyatt, the chairman of the
department, said a total ban on Wikipedia would have been impractical,
not to mention close-minded, because Wikipedia is simply too handy to
expect students never to consult it.
At Middlebury, a discussion about the new policy is scheduled on
campus on Monday, with speakers poised to defend and criticize using
the site in research.
Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and chairman emeritus of its
foundation, said of the Middlebury policy, “I don’t consider it as a
negative thing at all.”
He continued: “Basically, they are recommending exactly what we
suggested — students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope
they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, either.
“If they had put out a statement not to read Wikipedia at all, I would
be laughing. They might as well say don’t listen to rock ’n’ roll
either.”
Indeed, the English-language version of the site had an estimated 38
million users in the United States in December, and can be hard to
avoid while on the Internet. Google searches on such diverse subjects
as historical figures like Confucius and concepts like torture give
the Wikipedia entry the first listing.
In some colleges, it has become common for professors to assign
students to create work that appears on Wikipedia. According to
Wikipedia’s list of school and university projects, this spring the
University of East Anglia in England and Oberlin College in Ohio will
have students edit articles on topics being taught in courses on the
Middle East and ancient Rome.
In December 2005, a Columbia professor, Henry Smith, had the graduate
students in his seminar create a Japanese bibliography project, posted
on Wikipedia, to describe and analyze resources like libraries,
reference books and newspapers. With 16 contributors, including the
professor, the project comprises dozens of articles, including 13 on
different Japanese dictionaries and encyclopedias.
In evaluations after the class, the students said that creating an
encyclopedia taught them discipline in writing and put them in contact
with experts who improved their work and whom, in some cases, they
were later able to interview.
“Most were positive about the experience, especially the training in
writing encyclopedia articles, which all of them came to realize is
not an easy matter,” Professor Smith wrote in an e-mail message. “Many
also retained their initial ambivalence about Wikipedia itself.”
The discussion raised by the Middlebury policy has been covered by
student newspapers at the University of Pennsylvania and Tufts, among
others. The Middlebury Campus, the student weekly, included an opinion
article last week by Chandler Koglmeier that accused the history
department of introducing “the beginnings of censorship.”
Other students call the move unnecessary. Keith Williams, a senior
majoring in economics, said students “understand that Wikipedia is not
a responsible source, that it hasn’t been thoroughly vetted.” Yet he
said, “I personally use it all the time.”
Jason Mittell, an assistant professor of American studies and film and
media culture at Middlebury, said he planned to take the pro-Wikipedia
side in the campus debate. “The message that is being sent is that
ultimately they see it as a threat to traditional knowledge,” he said.
“I see it as an opportunity. What does that mean for traditional
scholarship? Does traditional scholarship lose value?”
For his course “Media Technology and Cultural Change,” which began
this month, Professor Mittell said he would require his students to
create a Wikipedia entry as well as post a video on YouTube, create a
podcast and produce a blog for the course.
Another Middlebury professor, Thomas Beyer, of the Russian department,
said, “I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone citing an
encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against using it as a
starting point.”
And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as
supporting the Shimabara Rebellion.
303
Bob
knew: that Wikipedia is a mixed blessing. It is subject to error,
both honest and dishonest. And while it is not reliable enough to bet
the farm on, it does provide one of several available "beginning
points" in the research of many subjects. If one takes it as that,
then Wik can be a useful resource. If one takes it as a substitute
for honest research, then one does so at risk.
Wikipedia's articles relating to Baha'i are almost transparently
influenced by propaganda. In such cases, Wik's controllers would be
well advised to restrict access to the writing and editing of such
articles, and to append a section for pro-and con- articles or
addenda, so that at least the reader can avail himself of other online
resources, for example, the Former Baha'is website.
Unfortunately, most people will, I fear, take the easy way.
PaulHammond
> The article cited seems to affirm what I think most of us already
> knew: that Wikipedia is a mixed blessing. It is subject to error,
> both honest and dishonest. And while it is not reliable enough to bet
> the farm on, it does provide one of several available "beginning
> points" in the research of many subjects. If one takes it as that,
> then Wik can be a useful resource. If one takes it as a substitute
> for honest research, then one does so at risk.
>
> Wikipedia's articles relating to Baha'i are almost transparently
> influenced by propaganda. In such cases, Wik's controllers would be
> well advised to restrict access to the writing and editing of such
> articles, and to append a section for pro-and con- articles or
> addenda, so that at least the reader can avail himself of other online
> resources, for example, the Former Baha'is website.
>
> Unfortunately, most people will, I fear, take the easy way.
>
> On Jul 22, 5:24 am, 303 <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Well, I think it's fair enough that people don't reference Wikipedia
in serious research articles.
Similarly, they shouldn't reference the Sun newspaper (except possibly
in a media studies essay about newspapers), nor should they reference
"the bloke I met in the pub last night".
But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to meet a bloke down the
pub who actually knows what he's talking about. And, of course, you
can ask the bloke down the pub who knows his stuff to recommend a
couple of good books (all good Wikipedia articles should include
sources - that's part of the problem with your Most Great Name
article, isn't it? That it's badly referenced?)
Incidently, Nima, you SHOULD realise that the term "screed-monkey"
refers to a usenet/internet kook who amuses themselves by posting big
long articles that they haven't digested properly (and then spamming
them rather than talking to people) - that's why I apply the term to
you. I really doubt that many screed monkeys are also history
professors.
Something useful I learnt from those alt.usenet.kooks guys you kindly
introduced us to when you were trying to bash your former friend Seon
Ferguson and turned up a guy from there who liked taking the piss out
of him.
Law of unintended consequences, anyone?
Paul
All Bad
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:a6073867-48a5-47ec...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Jul, 15:03, Bob <RobertAr...@msn.com> wrote:
> The article cited seems to affirm what I think most of us already
> knew: that Wikipedia is a mixed blessing. It is subject to error,
> both honest and dishonest. And while it is not reliable enough to bet
> the farm on, it does provide one of several available "beginning
> points" in the research of many subjects. If one takes it as that,
> then Wik can be a useful resource. If one takes it as a substitute
> for honest research, then one does so at risk.
>
> Wikipedia's articles relating to Baha'i are almost transparently
> influenced by propaganda. In such cases, Wik's controllers would be
Robert, I don't see much evidence that you know anything about the BF other
than some of the propaganda. It is no surprise that it bears some
resemblance to what you see on Wikipedia, so you can mistake it for
propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baha%27i
"The Bahá'í Faith is a religion founded by Bahá'u'lláh in nineteenth-century
Persia.[1]"
Factually incorrect. Baha'u'llah had left Persia before declaring His
mission.
Though the article did start off wrong, much of it is not only
referenceable, but somewhat accurate. You might do well to learn about the
BF by studying the article, and discussion any discrepancies that you see
between the article and the lies which you have chosen to believe.
> well advised to restrict access to the writing and editing of such
> articles, and to append a section for pro-and con- articles or
> addenda, so that at least the reader can avail himself of other online
> resources, for example, the Former Baha'is website.
>
> Unfortunately, most people will, I fear, take the easy way.
>
> On Jul 22, 5:24 am, 303 <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
PH: Well, I think it's fair enough that people don't reference Wikipedia
in serious research articles.
PH: Similarly, they shouldn't reference the Sun newspaper (except possibly
in a media studies essay about newspapers), nor should they reference
"the bloke I met in the pub last night".
PH: But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to meet a bloke down the
pub who actually knows what he's talking about. And, of course, you
can ask the bloke down the pub who knows his stuff to recommend a
couple of good books (all good Wikipedia articles should include
sources - that's part of the problem with your Most Great Name
article, isn't it? That it's badly referenced?)
This one is Robert Arvay, who probably knows less about the BF than most of
the non-Baha'is who post to TRB.
PH: Incidently, Nima, you SHOULD realise that the term "screed-monkey"
refers to a usenet/internet kook who amuses themselves by posting big
long articles that they haven't digested properly (and then spamming
them rather than talking to people) - that's why I apply the term to
you. I really doubt that many screed monkeys are also history
professors.
PH: Something useful I learnt from those alt.usenet.kooks guys you kindly
introduced us to when you were trying to bash your former friend Seon
Ferguson and turned up a guy from there who liked taking the piss out
of him.
PH: Law of unintended consequences, anyone?
For sure, an unfamiliar handle posts in, and says the BF articles in
Wikipedia are sexed up, and of course it looks like Nima.
- All Bad
Sock-Puppet'ullah
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Bob
On Jul 23, 8:55 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
>
> Robert, I don't see much evidence that you know anything about the BF other
> than some of the propaganda.
>
> the non-Baha'is who post to TRB.
It is more accurate to refer to me as a former Baha'i, although non-
Baha'i is now the case.
PaulHammond
> "PaulHammond" <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
No, I realise that Bob is Bob Arvay - I'm just replying to the latest
message in the thread.
Nima's style is unmistakable - and he doesn't sound like Bob.
I just thought that I should clarify that the term "screed monkey" is
unlikely to apply to a History professor who is probably doing his
best to get his students to *think* rather than simply cut-and-paste
from the most easily accessible internet sources.
The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is clearly its weakness as
well as its strength - but so long as you bear in mind the "bloke in
the pub" test and apply your own mind to the plausibility and sources
of information you get from there you shouldn't go too far wrong, imo.
Of course, the *advantage* is that it's a huge pub that anyone in the
world can say something in - there can't be too many pubs that
actually attract experts in all kinds of areas.
People in the paper media *do* seem to be incredibly obsessed with the
fact that erroneous information can sometimes stay on a page for 20
minutes, or a day or so before anyone bothers to clean it up.
Paul
The Cat's Meow
> People in the paper media *do* seem to be incredibly obsessed with the
> fact that erroneous information can sometimes stay on a page for 20
> minutes, or a day or so before anyone bothers to clean it up.
The power to change information on Wikipedia is a great strength .. but also
a weakness, especially in respect of fringe or minority interests where
pages will be dominated by folks with a mission or an axe to grind.
Try getting a newspaper to change inaccurate or misleading information ...
you got no chance. Add to that Government Departments ... assuming they
haven't already lost or mislaid the data or, even, that the gomer one is
speaking to is of sufficient intellectual calibre to understand the concept
that "a mistake has been made."
Many years ago I was at a meetiung with a senior official in a government
department. She produced the file record concerning a chance meeting I had
with an individual whose affairs were under scrutiny by her department. I
queried the accuracxy of the file record (which purported to be a true
record of a conversation with me) on the basis that it appeared to describe
a meeting that I had not attended. She refused to change the record or even
note that I, a participant in the meeting, disputed the account of she had
in her file.
The underling who produced that report which was supposed to refect my
account of the meeting has now emerged in a senior position in Government.
I make earnest efforts to avoid her. What scares me is that she is no
different in terms of intellectual capacity from people I cannot avoid.
I'd opt for the Wikipedia method every time - it's open, transparent andthe
records are kept!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
> The article cited seems to affirm what I think most of us already
> knew: that Wikipedia is a mixed blessing. It is subject to error,
> both honest and dishonest. And while it is not reliable enough to bet
> the farm on, it does provide one of several available "beginning
> points" in the research of many subjects. If one takes it as that,
> then Wik can be a useful resource. If one takes it as a substitute
> for honest research, then one does so at risk.
>
> Wikipedia's articles relating to Baha'i are almost transparently
> influenced by propaganda. In such cases, Wik's controllers would be
> well advised to restrict access to the writing and editing of such
> articles, and to append a section for pro-and con- articles or
> addenda, so that at least the reader can avail himself of other online
> resources, for example, the Former Baha'is website.
>
> Unfortunately, most people will, I fear, take the easy way.
Thanks Robert.
W
Sock-Puppet'ullah
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
Anti-Wikipedia "screed monkeys" (Paul Hammond, 2008) in the Ivory
Death to Haifan Bahaism
wrote:
> For sure, an unfamiliar handle posts in, and says the BF articles in
> Wikipedia are sexed up, and of course it looks like Nima.
Please explain, fink, why an article such as Maitreya on whackopedia
has a reference to your creed? Maitreya is a northern Buddhist
character relevent to the Sino-Japanese, Tibeto-Nepalese and Korean
"Pure Land" traditions of Mahayana Buddhism; not an Abrahamic one that
is ostensibly the primary lineage of your cult. Nor did Mirza Husayn
Ali Nari ever claim to be the Buddhist Maitreya. This was claimed for
him post facto. Sexed up is all you bahaim do in your propaganda
stamping of whackopedia. Your IT committee has deputized an entire
contingency of individuals on it for the sole purpose of slanting any
article with even a remote, distant relevance to your cult with the
official stamp of your cult. So blow it out your backside, demon!
W
All Bad
"Bob" <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c754c193-ace5-4cb2...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
...
On Jul 23, 8:55 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
>
> Robert, I don't see much evidence that you know anything about the BF
> other
> than some of the propaganda.
>
> This one is Robert Arvay, who probably knows less about the BF than most
> of
> the non-Baha'is who post to TRB.
RA: It is more accurate to refer to me as a former Baha'i, although non-
Baha'i is now the case.
Definitely not. Though it may perhaps be factually true, some how, some
way, that you had enrolled some where, so much of what you know, even at a
basic level, seems so wrong, that I find the term "former Baha'i" to be
completely inadequate to describe you.
Of course it does not surprise me that you are also oblivious to this, so,
go ahead and label yourself as an ex-Baha'i.
- All Bad
All Bad
PH: No, I realise that Bob is Bob Arvay - I'm just replying to the latest
message in the thread.
PH: Nima's style is unmistakable - and he doesn't sound like Bob.
PH: I just thought that I should clarify that the term "screed monkey" is
unlikely to apply to a History professor who is probably doing his
best to get his students to *think* rather than simply cut-and-paste
from the most easily accessible internet sources.
PH: The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is clearly its weakness as
well as its strength - but so long as you bear in mind the "bloke in
the pub" test and apply your own mind to the plausibility and sources
of information you get from there you shouldn't go too far wrong, imo.
I don't see Robert fixing the article that he characterised as reflecting
propaganda. PErhaps this is a positive sign about my old pal Robert.
PH: Of course, the *advantage* is that it's a huge pub that anyone in the
world can say something in - there can't be too many pubs that
actually attract experts in all kinds of areas.
PH: People in the paper media *do* seem to be incredibly obsessed with the
fact that erroneous information can sometimes stay on a page for 20
minutes, or a day or so before anyone bothers to clean it up.
The Paper people are just working their way throug their own issues. My
children managed to survive a science text book which alleged that the
Statue of Liberty was made of bronze.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/11/03/badbooks/
Aahhhh, America, where political correctness trumps factual correctness ....
- All Bad
Sock-Puppet'ullah
wrote:
> Aahhhh, America, where political correctness trumps factual correctness ....
You said it, since this is your style to the letter.
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Anti-Wikipedia "screed monkeys" (Paul Hammond, 2008) in the Ivory
PaulHammond
> On Jul 25, 8:02 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Aahhhh, America, where political correctness trumps factual correctness ....
>
> You said it, since this is your style to the letter.
>
>
> BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
>
> "Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
> Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
> Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
> Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
> Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
>
> 1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
> 2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
> ignorance
> 3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
> and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
> 4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
> biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
> the main issue exposed)
> 5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
> [i.e. shoot the messenger]
> 6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
> the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
> attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
> bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
>
> Anti-Wikipedia "screed monkeys" (Paul Hammond, 2008) in the Ivory
> Tower too. Seems the anti-cabal, anti-corporatist anti-wikipedians are
> everywhere:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?_r=3&oref=s
I don't think it's quite fair of Nima to call these History profs
"screed monkeys"
I'm sure they're only trying to get their students to think more
clearly and not simply cut and paste from the most popular internet
sources. I'm pretty sure these people have not made a habit of
creating long posts which they regurgitate over and over again rather
than responding to people's arguments.
Such a policy makes a great deal of sense to me, but has little to do
with Nima's accusations of widespread abuse of identities
(sockpuppetry) and wild conspiracy theories about why he got banned
from wikipedia.
Nor does it have much to do with the process whereby his use of the
earlier identities of SecretChiefs3 and Ahwa85 to continue to feed his
abuse of Mike Russell into the Juan Cole article's talk page drew
attention to earlier contributions of those identities, leading to
Mike Russell filing the Most Great Name article for deletion. (which
caused Nima to issue death threats to Mr Russell in
talk.religion.bahai)
PaulHammond
I strongly suspect that Nima himself hasn't read more of it than the
Headline.
It certainly doesn't support his conspiracy theories about the place,
which are transparently motivated by Nima's animus in having failed to
control the content of a few articles that thinks he should be able to
dictate content of.
Indeed, the policy apparently doesn't bother Jimbo Wales (the co-
founder, and the one who is usually quoted or interviewed about it)
"Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and chairman emeritus of its
foundation, said of the Middlebury policy, “I don’t consider it as a
negative thing at all.”
"He continued: “Basically, they are recommending exactly what we
suggested — students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope
they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, either.
"“If they had put out a statement not to read Wikipedia at all, I
would be laughing. They might as well say don’t listen to rock ’n’
roll either.” "
(don't know why they call him "Jimmy" since so far as I know,
everybody calls him "Jimbo" - maybe the NYTimes has a copy-editor who
couldn't believe that he really prefers "Jimbo")
Some academic departments apparently make use of editing Wikipedia as
a motivating tool for their courses, and a way of bringing in outside
perspectives:
"In December 2005, a Columbia professor, Henry Smith, had the graduate
students in his seminar create a Japanese bibliography project, posted
on Wikipedia, to describe and analyze resources like libraries,
reference books and newspapers. With 16 contributors, including the
professor, the project comprises dozens of articles, including 13 on
different Japanese dictionaries and encyclopedias.
"In evaluations after the class, the students said that creating an
encyclopedia taught them discipline in writing and put them in contact
with experts who improved their work and whom, in some cases, they
were later able to interview.
"“Most were positive about the experience, especially the training in
writing encyclopedia articles, which all of them came to realize is
not an easy matter,” Professor Smith wrote in an e-mail message. “Many
also retained their initial ambivalence about Wikipedia itself.” "
The policy appears to have created controversy within the University
itself, with some students calling it the start of a programme of
censorship - while others are less dramatic:
"The discussion raised by the Middlebury policy has been covered by
student newspapers at the University of Pennsylvania and Tufts, among
others. The Middlebury Campus, the student weekly, included an opinion
article last week by Chandler Koglmeier that accused the history
department of introducing “the beginnings of censorship.”
"Other students call the move unnecessary. Keith Williams, a senior
majoring in economics, said students “understand that Wikipedia is not
a responsible source, that it hasn’t been thoroughly vetted.” Yet he
said, “I personally use it all the time.” "
And, somewhere near the conclusion of the article, the NYTimes quotes
a prof from another department, whose views on Wikipedia, and quoting
it in academic work I think I could wholly agree with
"Another Middlebury professor, Thomas Beyer, of the Russian
department, said, “I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone
citing an encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against
using it as a starting point.” "
303 wrote:
> Anti-Wikipedia "screed monkeys" (Paul Hammond, 2008) in the Ivory
> Tower too. Seems the anti-cabal, anti-corporatist anti-wikipedians are
> everywhere:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?_r=3&oref=s
>
It certainly doesn't support Nima's argument, which is basically
"Nyah, nyah ne nyah nyah, the NYTimes says Nima is right about
Wikipedia and Paul Hammond is wrong".
I find much to agree with in this article - especially that comment of
Prof. Beyer from the Russian department that I noted above.
Paul
Sock-Puppet'ullah
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
Review,
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?_r=3&oref=s
"And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as
supporting the Shimabara Rebellion."
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source
Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and chairman emeritus of its
foundation, said of the Middlebury policy, “I don’t consider it as a
negative thing at all.”
He continued: “Basically, they are recommending exactly what we
suggested — students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope
they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, either.
“If they had put out a statement not to read Wikipedia at all, I would
be laughing. They might as well say don’t listen to rock ’n’ roll
either.”
Indeed, the English-language version of the site had an estimated 38
million users in the United States in December, and can be hard to
avoid while on the Internet. Google searches on such diverse subjects
as historical figures like Confucius and concepts like torture give
the Wikipedia entry the first listing.
In some colleges, it has become common for professors to assign
students to create work that appears on Wikipedia. According to
Wikipedia’s list of school and university projects, this spring the
University of East Anglia in England and Oberlin College in Ohio will
have students edit articles on topics being taught in courses on the
Middle East and ancient Rome.
In December 2005, a Columbia professor, Henry Smith, had the graduate
students in his seminar create a Japanese bibliography project, posted
on Wikipedia, to describe and analyze resources like libraries,
reference books and newspapers. With 16 contributors, including the
professor, the project comprises dozens of articles, including 13 on
different Japanese dictionaries and encyclopedias.
In evaluations after the class, the students said that creating an
encyclopedia taught them discipline in writing and put them in contact
with experts who improved their work and whom, in some cases, they
were later able to interview.
“Most were positive about the experience, especially the training in
writing encyclopedia articles, which all of them came to realize is
not an easy matter,” Professor Smith wrote in an e-mail message. “Many
also retained their initial ambivalence about Wikipedia itself.”
The discussion raised by the Middlebury policy has been covered by
student newspapers at the University of Pennsylvania and Tufts, among
others. The Middlebury Campus, the student weekly, included an opinion
article last week by Chandler Koglmeier that accused the history
department of introducing “the beginnings of censorship.”
Other students call the move unnecessary. Keith Williams, a senior
majoring in economics, said students “understand that Wikipedia is not
a responsible source, that it hasn’t been thoroughly vetted.” Yet he
said, “I personally use it all the time.”
Jason Mittell, an assistant professor of American studies and film and
media culture at Middlebury, said he planned to take the pro-Wikipedia
side in the campus debate. “The message that is being sent is that
ultimately they see it as a threat to traditional knowledge,” he said.
“I see it as an opportunity. What does that mean for traditional
scholarship? Does traditional scholarship lose value?”
For his course “Media Technology and Cultural Change,” which began
this month, Professor Mittell said he would require his students to
create a Wikipedia entry as well as post a video on YouTube, create a
podcast and produce a blog for the course.
Another Middlebury professor, Thomas Beyer, of the Russian department,
said, “I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone citing an
encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against using it as a
starting point.”
And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as
supporting the Shimabara Rebellion.
PaulHammond
Sock-Puppet'ullah wrote:
> See *Bahais In My Backyard*
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
>
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
http://www.lowgenius.net/kookway.htm
TEH WAY OF THE K00K
Never learn from your mistakes.
Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right.
Always pick on those smarter and tougher than you.
Always believe that only you know the TRVTH.
Never allow logic or reason get in the way of a good k00k.
When being overwhelmed by logic and reason: k00ksuit!
If you are going to be wrong, do it at the top of your lungs.
When caught in a lie: LIE!
When in doubt: Order the Crab Won Ton
Plagiarism is your friend. Use it.
Whenever contradicted; morph, start calling people names, and make
false
accusations. Include the children of your target in your allegations,
even if they don't have any.
(06-Jun-05) When nobody else will listen, post to your own fan group.
(06-Jun-05) Obviously, since you have your own fan group, this must
mean
that you have fans. Post prolifically to your fan group - you
wouldn't
want to disappoint them!
(10-May-2005)Everyone reads usenet. Approval here means approval
everywhere.
Post numerous blank posts, or posts containing only a message id.
Post numerous copy&paste web articles from crackerpot websites.
Never forget to call kookologists "k00ks."
If there are several, call them "sockpuppets" too
When all else fails, accuse various and sundry kookologists of e-
mailing
viruses to you. This is a sure-fire method of garnering sympathy and
ensuring that the General Public will always see things your way. An
especially effective sub-strategy here is to accuse them of infecting
you with the 'Sasser' worm via e-mail.
Quote notorious scientists or writers - it makes it look as if they
approve the drivel you are writing!
(9-Jul-05) Anytime your computer is infected with a virus, bogged
down
by spyware, attacked over your internet connection, or otherwise
suffers
from preventable problems, government agencies are responsible and
are
trying to silence you and are monitoring your computer files.
Ignore all traffic signs and feel free to trespass, you don't have to
obey any rules.
Scare your enemies with lawsuits, police escorts and whines.
Always back up your empty (albeit noisy) threats with phony LARTs,
false
police reports, and harassing letters to the FBI and other gubbermint
agencies.
Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat yourself, the
more
likely others will believe you!
If you can't find anyone as crazy as yourself to support you in the
flamewars you start with the normal population, create sock puppets
and
use anonymous remailers that shamelessly hang on every word you
write.
(17-Mar-05) When dealing with law enforcement, remember that it is
they
who have the problem, not you. Be sure to inform them of this at
every
available opportunity, as they will surely appreciate your
constructive
criticism. Be sure to make them aware that YOU KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
("The
cops like that, when people know their rights. That way they don't
have
to read them to you on the way to the station." - George Carlin)
The more your fake personalities adulate you, the more respect you'll
get!
When confronted with a reality that you don't like: Announce loudly
that you are departing, never to return as long as there's an
Internet.
Come back in three or four days and claim you were drunk, hacked,
abducted by alience, or forged. Alternately you can just not even
mention your prior departure, and if anyone asks you about it, either
ignore them or respond with something along the lines of "YOUR NOT
THE
BOSS OF ME! *PLONK*!" People really know you mean business then.
Always remain clueproof.
(20-Mar-05) Anyone who does not believe that you are the
reincarnation
of [$DEITY_OR_PROPHET] is obviously an infidel lacking in faith whose
soul in in peril of everlasting damnation.
When responding to one line challenges, post paragraphs of rants and
screed in response.
Incoherency is not a roadblock to poasting.
Neither is illiteracy.
Delusions poasted often enough become fact.
Claim you will destroy <insert newsfroup> for attacking you.
When spnaked, send cmsg for Fanboi newsfroup(s).
Find your Lame, Use your Lame, Be your Lame!
Post Edit when the TRVTH hurts.
Always sneck the offending newsfroups.
Always poast pictures of yourself so you can be admired in all your
k00ky
glory.
Always accuse others of the very acts you are guilty of.
Post lots of boasts about your high IQ and incredible talents.
(20-Mar-05) If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Anybody who fails to understand this is engaged in a deliberate
campaign
of misinformation and character assassination.
Always <plonk> somebody just before replying the plonkee!
The k00k considers itself the most intelligent person in any
conversation, possibly on the planet. Other people are benighted and
ignorant, and have been waiting their whole lives for the k00k to
rescue
them from intellectual darkness.
Write a self-published book and claim it a success. Bonus points for
comparing it to "Mein Kampf" and/or the Bible.
Declare yourself equal to a deity of your choice.
Claim that you've come from other planets.
Claim thousands of past lives.
Frothing complaints carry far more weight when you send them from
"legal@" some domain.
Nothing strikes terror into the hearts of your detractors more than
telling them that you're archiving their messages for possible use in
the future.
Never forget that everyone else posting to Usenet is a paid
disinformation agent looking to discredit you.
Usenet is governed by US law. If a poster in Romania killfiles you,
he's
obviously violating your 1st Amendment rights and can be sued.
Every news admin in the world hangs out in NANAU, and they're just
dying
to nuke the account of that meanyhead who just called you
"fucknozzle".
Drop 'em a line - that's what they're there for, after all.
AUK will be closed down. Just you wait and see.
They've nuked hundreds of accounts in the name of free speech and
*yours* will be next.
The k00k will, without any trace of irony, lie, manipulate,
impersonate,
censor, and declare themselves powerful in ways ranging from the
ability
to have an account shut down to being God Herself, in order to
convince
people that they are not liars, manipulators, censors, or insane.
Abuse women while telling how many hundreds you've loved. Nevermind
that
you're one ugly motherfucker and that there were 30,000 femininas
that
thought you were a scumbag with bad teeth.
Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not
require proof.
Do not neglect to poast your responses to forums that the originator
doesn't read. This will make the people in that forum very impressed
with how you tear him to shreds without him being able to respond.
They
like it even better if you are off-topic for that forum.
Keep in mind that lack of evidence supporting your konspiracy theory
actually _is_ evidence, of how effective the konspiracy is in hiding.
(06-Oct-05) When spanked, always retreat to the safety of the Ad
Hominem.
(04-Aug-2005) When spanked mercilessly for days on end, proving with
each poast just what an illiterate and ignorant fool you are, ALWAYS
claim ownership of [person(s),froup(s)]. This works on so many
levels.
It inspires dread in your opponents that they will no longer be able
to
poast in their home froup and that they will eventually have to pay
rent, to name just two.
Any problems with your poasts are the fault of the konspirators, who
are
trying to stop you from preventing the extinction of humanity.
Konspiracies that are able to subvert whole governments are always
unable
to silence konspiracy ko0ks.
The entire United States government is willing to spend millions of
dollars for the sole purpose of harassing you.
Hollywood is making movies based on your personal life.
Do not consult psychiatrists or other mental health professionals.
They
are part of the konspiracy, and will sedate you and lock you away and
keep you drugged if you tell them the truth.
Numerology and Astrology are respectable sciences and are useful for
proving your case.
Everyone is Tim Hill, or David Green, or...
There is a fine line between trolling and kookery. Find that line and
cross it repeatedly. When you are killfiled and/or LARTed for
net.abuse
as a result, claim victory. If you lose multiple accounts, this
merely
proves that you are indeed a world-class troll, with a black-belt in
manipulation.
If you respond to every post someone else makes, they're obsessed. If
they respond to less than 1% of your posts, they're even more
obsessed.
Publishing people's real names, addresses, and phone numbers when
there's no other way for you to come out of a flamewar with any
dignity
is cool, and proves that you are a master of secret internet
information
stores, and absolutely not to be fucked with.
Everyone is out to get you. You can put a stop to this by telling
everyone that they're out to get you at every available opportunity.
You are the only sane one.
Those that give you a hard time about morally bankrupt things you
yourself admit to are just persecutioners of the new inquisition.
Yelling in all caps and cursing at your detractors is debate. Your
detractors laughing at you with sarcastic remarks is obvious anger
and
jealousy.
If doing something results in the loss of your account, legal
hassles,
or blunt trauma injury, do it again. It always works better the
second
time.
Asterisks, lots and lots of Asterisks.
Poking holes in kookscreed is stalking, and is a felony.
K00ks LOVE to "connect the dots". They are, of course, dots that only
the k00k can see.
"They laughed at Einstein, too!"
Sock-Puppet'ullah
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
Review,
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Scien...