Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wikipedia - A general discussion of its validity
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 16 of 40 (271674)
12-22-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminNWR
12-21-2005 4:52 PM


Re: What's all the fuss about?
yeah... i was certainly not referring to an all out prohibition. just not.
blah blah questionable something
oh well wiki says blah blah blah (wiki gospel)
oh well then. must be right if wiki says.
seriously. i mean sure. overview of (insert something well known here) but not 'this guy did go to iraq and was involved in terrorist activities'. it's ludicrous. questionable information should be referenced from somewhere that we can have some amount of confidence in the rigor with which research was done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminNWR, posted 12-21-2005 4:52 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminNWR, posted 12-22-2005 10:56 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2005 11:01 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 17 of 40 (271679)
12-22-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
12-21-2005 10:04 PM


ricky, lick my balls.
do you believe everything people tell you?
i'd expect you to look it up for yourself.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-22-2005 10:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 12-21-2005 10:04 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 12-22-2005 5:24 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 40 (271686)
12-22-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by macaroniandcheese
12-22-2005 10:41 AM


Re: What's all the fuss about?
i was certainly not referring to an all out prohibition.
That's good to hear.
... but not 'this guy did go to iraq and was involved in terrorist activities'.
In the particular case, you could have simply challenged the relevance of that particular wiki entry by pointing out that it makes a bare assertion with no details whatsoever on travel to Iraq.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-22-2005 10:41 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 19 of 40 (271690)
12-22-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by macaroniandcheese
12-22-2005 10:41 AM


Re: What's all the fuss about?
This seems a pretty valid point, especially since someone could just write the relevant Wikipedia entry themselves before referencing it. Actually this may no longer be the case, I'm not sure exactly how the wikipedia rules were changed after that JFK brouhaha.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-22-2005 10:41 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-22-2005 11:03 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 20 of 40 (271691)
12-22-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Wounded King
12-22-2005 11:01 AM


Re: What's all the fuss about?
that would be a good reason. see? i'm not crazy. i just don't trust people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2005 11:01 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 40 (271791)
12-22-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by macaroniandcheese
12-22-2005 10:45 AM


Re: ricky, lick my balls.
sorry, i looked it up in wikipedia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-22-2005 10:45 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 22 of 40 (272773)
12-26-2005 4:08 AM


Wiki--a house of sand?
While Wikipedia`s semi-protection rule might offer some shield against spammers or troublemakers, what of the editoring censorship?
From Jihad watch
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
December 24, 2005
Why Wikipedia won't work
Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett, who many of you may remember for her superb work on the site while I was out of the country in November, has informed me that she has been engaged in a series of pitched battles at that bastion of objectivity and pillar of truth, Wikipedia -- over my own biography. I appreciate her kindness and persistence in tilting at this particular windmill, and thought her caveat emptor about her experiences and Wikipedia in general was worth sharing with you:
Bravo for life’s little ironies: Wired News reports recently that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has edited his own biography -- in spite of Wikipeida’s policy that “You should not write about yourself, since objectivity on the subject is hard ” but you can assist by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors.”
Why do I mention this at Jihad Watch? Because some time ago I noticed some odd things about Mr. Spencer’s Wikipedia entry. Not only the strange entry about imaginary sephardic ancestry, but also odd diatribes about his Inside Islam coauthor Daniel Ali that had also -- in a coincidence that strains all credulity -- popped up on other web sites at the same time. The other web sites with accountable editors noticed them and deleted them as irrelevant, but not Wikipedia. Once I noticed them I tried to correct the record, only to have my changes reverted and various accusations thrown about suggesting that I was in fact Robert Spencer (last time I checked I was both beardless and female so I rather think that I am not) by people seemingly unfamiliar with the concepts of a routers or computer networks. Yet even as a volunteer at Jihad Watch, I was warned by “editor” and Wikipedia scribbler “Yalto,” who was bickering with “editor” “Chalko,” that I was probably too close to the subject to post. After checking the above policy I more or less confined myself to comments on the talk page. When I asked “Yalto” what exactly his interest was in the subject, he of course, declined to answer.
A choice snippet from the discussion page:
“His religious affiliation is Roman Catholic. But his handlers don't want anyone talking about it or his board membership in a Catholic Group (the Christian-Islamic Forum) that works to convert Muslims to Christianity.”
Handlers? Come on. But the more important issue (aside from another opportunity to make merry at the expense of the terminally paranoid) is this: Wikipedia’s own rules enforce the kind of shoddy research that would get any journalist fired. According to Wikipedia, the one thing you absolutely must not do is contact a source. Not even Spencer’s own website is considered as reliable as third party sources that write about him. What nonsense!
Mr. Spencer is no longer on the board of the Christian-Islamic Forum, which is a group more or less defunct while Mr. Ali pursues some new avenues that opened up for him. As anyone can see, the FAQ on the Jihad Watch site explicitly disavows any religious agenda. But when I posted a note about this, as well as the information that the group was defunct, both were removed. You would think that Mr. Spencer’s bio would be a pretty authoritative source, but not for Yalto. Yalto thinks that the affiliation with the group is all-important to reveal Mr. Spencer’s true motivations, even if Spencer has denied this. Yalto repeatedly emphasizes that the Christian-Islamic Forum is “a Christian group that targets Muslims for conversion to christianity (sic).” “Targets” is a pretty provocative word for a commenter as neutral is Yalto claims to be. Yalto further demonstrated his neutrality by posting long quotes from Daniel Ali, “out of concern that the information will disappear” (I guess he fears Mr. Spencer’s mysterious “handlers” could go down to Virginia and threaten Marcus Grodi of the Coming Home Network, to whom Mr. Ali spoke the quotes in question). Yet Yalto seems not to have noticed that the quotes from Ali are not about the Christian-Islamic Forum at all, and are in fact about Ali’s reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks, which occurred a month after the founding of the forum and so could not possibly have played a role in his motives in founding the group. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story? The fact that there is no evidence of any activity by the group at all -- no references to activity, no website, no nothin’-- does not, to the conspiratorial mind, suggest that it is inactive, but rather that it has successfully cloaked its insidious designs in secrecy.
And while the actual question of fact whether or not Mr. Spencer is still on the board of the Forum is sort of silly, it demonstrates the worst flaws of Wikipedia and its stated bias for cyberspace references to research and fact checking. To quote their policy, “Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source.” Thus an error once published will take on a life of its own. (P.S.: Wikipedia asks that you think carefully before editing that policy I just linked to, but anyone can. Thus tomorrow morning the policy might well read, “Only original research is acceptable at Wikipedia,” or “Editors who have not smoked sufficient quantities of marijuana in the past 24 hours are discouraged from posting,” and so on).
All this would be a silly joke except that, astonishingly enough, newpapers and schools have been using Wkipedia as a reference. Accuracy in Media reports:
Martin E. Marty, professor emeritus of religious history at the University of Chicago, and an ordained Lutheran minister for more than 50 years, had just written his 55th book, "When Faiths Collide."
The Post article said that "talk of religion's role in the disaster irks Marty. Following the devastation in Lisbon in 1755, priests roamed the streets, hanging those they believed had incurred God's wrath. That event 'shook the modern world,' he notes, changing people's idea of a benevolent, all-caring God."
That sure sounds like Marty was making the claim that priests were roaming the streets and hanging people who they believed had incurred God's wrath. But in fact he never said that, though he was interviewed for the article. The author of the article, Jose Antonio Vargas, has admitted that Marty never said that, and that his source was Wikipedia.
When John Seigenthaler took exception to being falsely implicated in JFK’s assassination on Wikipedia, a number of people wisecracked, “Didn’t he see the Edit button?” Aside from the fact that editing an article about yourself is frowned upon, what would have been the point? A persistent prankster would revert changes time and time again, and if he access to a source of dynamic IP addresses he couldn’t even be banned. A more potent question is, “How can anyone use this as a source? Don’t they see the edit button?”
When visiting a Wikipedia site, the reader can look up previous versions if he likes. But the main article is just the product of the latest “editor.” Any Stalinist who wants to come along and airbrush out comments he doesn’t like can do so. Unlike a blog’s comments where the best cure for bad speech is more speech, Wikipedia editors can simply wipe away viewpoints with which they disagree. The most persistent wins.
Google is a far better way to get information, all though you do have to go to all that horrible trouble of thinking and evaluating sources for yourself when you use Google. On the plus side, because Google lists page according to how many people have found them to be possible answers to the questions they are asking, you will get exactly what Wikipedia claims to offer: an internet consensus. In addition, you will probably find some alternative points of view you can evaluate, if you feel up to the rigors of making decisions for yourself in a marketplace of ideas.
There were other problems with the Wikipedia article. It quoted CAIR and ADC charges against Mr. Spencer, but when I added his responses to those charges Yalto informed me that no one, but no one, had responses to criticism of them on their Wikipedia pages. So I guess you can write that someone claims that Mr. X or Mr. Y likes to knock over banks to raise extra cash, but no one is allowed to write, “He denies the charge.” Also the Spencer “biography” quoted Hugh Fitzgerald and Daniel Ali extensively, and guess who hardly at all? (Let me give you a hint: his initials are R.S. and he is the putative subject of the article). Nor did it quote Hugh or Mr. Ali writing about Robert Spencer, but rather about Islam, Christianity, immigration, and whatever else got the editor’s knickers in a twist. I pointed out that this was bad writing and that if Hugh or Mr. Ali deserve such full length treatment, they should each get their own article instead of having the bulk of the Robert Spencer article be guilt-by-association quotations about and from them. I am still waiting for a response.
I myself am no longer involved in the discussion between Wikipedia editors Chalko and Yalto. When I told Mr. Spencer about the whole controversy, his reaction was, “”Chalko’? ”Yalto’? What is this, an episode of Star Trek?” But he agrees that there is no use correcting what is essentially a book of sand. Whatever form a Wikipedia article takes today might bear no resemblance to what it will be tomorrow.
Our Jihadist friends have been using the internet to spread their propaganda for some time, and Wikipedia gives them an ideal platform. Even if their changes don’t last forever, any Typhoid Mary who is dopey enough to use Wikipedia as a source can spread the disinformation. Only yesterday a page came up in the referrer page on Jihad Watch from a Wikipedia entry tagged “marked for deletion” about the Islamist-Nazi Alliance in World War II. Yes indeedy, let’s flush that down the ol’ memory hole. Two Jihad Watch readers also wrote in complaining that they had been barred from editing Wikipedia for being “anti-Palestinian,” or “anti-Muslim” -- so it seems that contrary to their slogan, Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia “anyone” can edit, just those who do not commit thought crime.
Without some sort of quality control implemented, and soon, Wikipedia will go the way of 1990’s dot-bombs like Pets.com, Value America, and e-toys. I would urge anyone to be extremely skeptical of Wikipedia as a source, and to be very vocal in demanding accountability from them. Until we get that accountability, caveat emptor, and remember, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, is worth exactly what you paid for it -- or even less.
Posted by Robert at December 24, 2005 11:51 AM | Email this entry | Print this entry

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 12-26-2005 10:50 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 40 (272802)
12-26-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
12-21-2005 6:27 PM


Re: A wiki alternative
I am responding to this post because it contained a link regarding Digital Universe, the supposed better version of Wiki, because it will be reviewed by "experts". While I don't want to totally put it down, I do think its funny that the guy putting it together (who was also a founder of Wiki) misses that he is appealing to a logical fallacy.
He is claiming it should be more trustworthy because reviewers will have PHDs, and actually uses the argument that "If you get operated on you'd rather trust a guy with an MD". Well yeah, but you know what? You also should go and get a second opinion, and sometimes it turns out people with PHDs ARE WRONG. Pasteur got nowhere for a long time because of this same type of educational/professional bias.
To be frank, I think that on scientific and humanitarian subjects it will be more trustworthy if the people have PhDs.
The most common form of inaccuracy from Post doctorates, I've found, is that when they speak outside of there sub-subject area they start making one or two mistakes, but that’s still a hell of a lot less than the average person you choose to speak about it.
So an article on "Alexander the great" could be edited as long as it was by somebody who was an expert in that area and still is or formerly was active in academic history.
Now articles such as "The history of First-Person Shooters on the PC"
wouldn't benefit from expert attention.
I understand that it is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority in debating when you use it without reference, but I don't think it's a
logical fallacy for an encyclopaedia striving for accuracy.
I'd still prefer if their were non-expert editors, but only to prevent an article from becoming too-technical.
Although, I also think that it won't be superior to Wikipedia.
It's my belief that it will be more accurate but a dryer read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 6:27 PM Silent H has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 24 of 40 (272806)
12-26-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Nighttrain
12-26-2005 4:08 AM


Re: Wiki--a house of sand?
I agree that Wiki is a potential target of pressure groups. Thus entries on hot button items are likely to be particularly unreliable.
I would like to see some information at the head of each entry, that gives some sort of indication of this - maybe a frequency of editing statistic (or content a stability rating).

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Nighttrain, posted 12-26-2005 4:08 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 25 of 40 (443402)
12-24-2007 8:52 PM


The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
From message 213 of the "Discussing the evidence that support creationism" topic:
Buzsaw writes:
Percy, the Wikipedia bias against creationism and conservatism is well established.
How about discussing the matter in this topic?
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 12-25-2007 7:57 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 40 (443469)
12-25-2007 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Minnemooseus
12-24-2007 8:52 PM


Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
quote:
Percy, the Wikipedia bias against creationism and conservatism is well established.
Would you say that there's a bias against flat-eathism, too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-24-2007 8:52 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:54 AM nator has replied
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:58 AM nator has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 40 (443487)
12-25-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
12-25-2007 7:57 AM


Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
shraf writes:
Would you say that there's a bias against flat-eathism, too?
Flat eathism? Your spelling here is about to the level of your analogy.
Are you denying the bias which I've already cited in the link which Moose provided?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 12-25-2007 7:57 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 12-26-2007 7:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 9:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 10:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 40 (443489)
12-25-2007 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
12-25-2007 7:57 AM


Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
I do use Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia. Both have good things to contribute to knowledge. My contention is that members of EvC should not be obligated to the bias of Wikipedia no more than we should to other sources like Conservapedia.
Edited by Buzsaw, : change content of double post
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 12-25-2007 7:57 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 12-26-2007 12:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 32 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 8:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 29 of 40 (443608)
12-26-2007 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 10:58 AM


Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
buz, just because two sources exist, and they disagree, that doesn't mean that both are equally wacky. same basic "teach the controversy" fallacy.
as stephen colbert put it, "reality is liberally biased!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 40 (443616)
12-26-2007 1:08 AM


Reliability of Wikipedia
Here is the opinion of an information professional (as in that is what they pay me for). It is my job to keep up with new developments in how information is acquired and disseminated to the public.
Wikipedia, like all self-proclaimed portals to knowledge had to go through some growing pains. Just a year ago, I noticed that there were several mistakes in some articles relating to history and a few other areas I examined, and based upon this sampling, I assume there were also mistakes in areas that I had not examined.
Upon going back to the areas where I had found errors of fact, i have discovered that while still not error free, Wikipedia as a source of quality information has improved over time.
Personally, I do not consider Wikipedia anything more than it claims to be, an online encyclopedia. Perhaps its greatest contribution to scholarship is the references, provided there are sufficient.
Naturally, if one desires to cite detailed and in-depth information about any given subject, an encyclopedia, be it online or in print, is not the proper source. Such information is mostly contained in higher quality books or peer-reviewed journals.
That being said, I feel that today, Wikipedia is a decent, and reasonably neutral resource for basic information.
I think it is important to remember when issues of bias come up, one must consider the source of the accusation and the agenda of the accuser, be it Muslim, Mormon, Millerite, Moderate, Monastic, Mercantile, Machiavellian or any other religion/ideology.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024