If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chronicle of Higher Education)   Professor and author of two books on the 1886 Haymarket riot attempts to correct an inaccuracy on the event's Wikipedia entry; has correction reversed, is called a vandal, is told site is based on what's popular, not what's true   (chronicle.com) divider line 361
    More: Obvious, Wikipedia, Haymarket, Wikipedia entry, Art in Public Places, historiographies, Haymarket riot, bibliography, American Labor Party  
•       •       •

24223 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2012 at 5:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



361 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-15 01:42:10 PM
Damn Truthers.
 
2012-02-15 01:52:24 PM
Easiest way to troll wikipedia is to put up random articles for deletion review.

That really gets people going.
 
2012-02-15 02:04:03 PM
That is a bunch of BS. Wikipedia needs a policy change if that's true.
 
2012-02-15 02:13:26 PM
The people who run wikipedia are out and out frauds and cowards when it comes to certain subjects. Bullshido.net lost it's page just because someone on wikipedia is a nutriding fanboi of Frank Dux (new window) Fark wikipedia.
 
2012-02-15 02:23:23 PM
That article should be required for every high school freshman.
 
2012-02-15 02:24:34 PM
Wow. That's nutty.
 
2012-02-15 02:36:02 PM

One Bad Apple: it's


ಠ_ಠ
 
2012-02-15 02:40:22 PM

cman: Easiest way to troll wikipedia is to put up random articles for deletion review.

That really gets people going.


Someone needs to go to the Amazon pages of his books and then write really inaccurate reviews and give them one star. He has no reviews yet so it should get him pretty worked up.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-15 02:40:55 PM
colbertrally.com
 
2012-02-15 02:41:11 PM
Wiki has turned into the internet's version of an HOA. The editors are a bunch of petty tyrants. Jimmy Wales knows this is a problem, but I don't think he know how to fix it.
 
2012-02-15 02:42:15 PM
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.
 
2012-02-15 02:45:53 PM
files.sharenator.com

I love Wikipedia, but they should have some way to recognize and value the contributions of legitimate experts.
 
2012-02-15 02:49:40 PM

NowhereMon: Wiki has turned into the internet's version of an HOA. The editors are a bunch of petty tyrants. Jimmy Wales knows this is a problem, but I don't think he know how to fix it.


My favorite is when an admin parks on a story and says he "owns" it. Nobody better edit that article on David Lee Roth's "Eat 'Em and Smile" album, because some guy from Picayune MS is the definitive source on that album. And nobody - even if it's the musicians, producer, engineer, or Diamond Dave himself - better challenge that guy's authority.
 
2012-02-15 02:59:39 PM
 
2012-02-15 03:02:10 PM

GreenAdder: NowhereMon: Wiki has turned into the internet's version of an HOA. The editors are a bunch of petty tyrants. Jimmy Wales knows this is a problem, but I don't think he know how to fix it.

My favorite is when an admin parks on a story and says he "owns" it. Nobody better edit that article on David Lee Roth's "Eat 'Em and Smile" album, because some guy from Picayune MS is the definitive source on that album. And nobody - even if it's the musicians, producer, engineer, or Diamond Dave himself - better challenge that guy's authority.


That's just ridiculous.
 
2012-02-15 03:02:35 PM
Always appropriate:
art.penny-arcade.com

Plus Skeletor.
 
2012-02-15 03:08:44 PM
Maybe the admins should be assigned topics on a completely random basis, and then rotated on a monthly basis. Half of them would probably quit, but that wouldn't be such a bad thing
 
2012-02-15 03:25:40 PM

NowhereMon: Maybe the admins should be assigned topics on a completely random basis, and then rotated on a monthly basis. Half of them would probably quit, but that wouldn't be such a bad thing


That's a great idea, actually.
 
2012-02-15 03:33:49 PM
I told my son when he started high school not to rely on Wikipedia, that he could use it as a starting point to find sources but not to write any papers based only on a wiki page.

The real issue with wikipedia is much of what the the author of TFA suggests...there's a lack of contravening evidence allowed in a particular page. Occasionally, you'll have something listed as controversy at the bottom of the page, but seldom are opposing conveyed. That poses a serious problem to someone that is writing a paper based off a wiki page (especially when you have to write to support your thesis statement by also showing an opposing viewpoint and breaking that down to further support your argument).

In short wiki is nothing more than light-reading on a topic (and I enjoy it for that)...anyone that thinks it's a be-all, end-all of encyclopedias is a fool.
 
2012-02-15 03:53:56 PM
Considering how the Wiki community seems to regard anything touching the Fark page--yes, try correcting their ideas on how memes start here, I double dog dare you--history is just a start to the Wikipedians pissiness...

If ever there was a community of pedantic and humorless asshats, it's there. Yes, I realize the cat who keeps sitting on the Fark page is here on Fark, but gottverdammt, can we please update some of that sh*t? And maybe let folks who were actually in the threads correct the impressions of days gone past?
 
2012-02-15 04:03:01 PM
I checked the talk page of that article, they appear to have learned nothing from this.
 
2012-02-15 04:04:52 PM
My college has expressly forbidden anyone from using Wikipedia as a source and has a standing policy of marking a 0 on any paper or project that cites it. Wikipedia cannot be considered reputable or scholarly because of these very kinds of individuals, and unforutnately it isn't a case of the few ruining it for the many, it is a case of most editors and admins have a serious chip on their shoulder and don't mind letting you know it.
 
2012-02-15 04:07:14 PM
Good read, very satisfying. For dessert, I read the comments.
 
2012-02-15 04:14:56 PM
If you really want a taste of the arrogance there, check out the various deletion discussion pages.
 
2012-02-15 04:16:12 PM
Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research. A spot where you can find information on where to find information. Use Wikipedia, but your get facts elsewhere.

Of course, you should realistically double check most of everything you read on the Internet(s).
 
2012-02-15 04:18:52 PM

One Bad Apple: The people who run wikipedia are out and out frauds and cowards when it comes to certain subjects. Bullshido.net lost it's page just because someone on wikipedia is a nutriding fanboi of Frank Dux (new window) Fark wikipedia.


Oh, and the current controversy on the Article Rescue Squadron... That is a group of editors who try to improve articles up for deletion... Good lord. Apparently deletionists don't like that people might improve an article so it doesn't get deleted. The deletion discussion, and the gloating after the deletion occured, was sickening.
 
2012-02-15 04:26:04 PM
Much like the communists, Wiki editors only allow their "approved" history in the books.

Letting this author explain that there actually was evidence presented at the trial would ruin the "birth of the worker" narrative the labor movement associates with the Haymarket riots. Unless the anarchists were as clean as Jesus Christ, they can't possibly be martyrs, so any evidence to the contrary is to be erased.
 
2012-02-15 04:32:52 PM

Lsherm: Much like the communists

Texas School Board, Wiki editors only allow their "approved" history in the books.

FTFY
 
2012-02-15 05:09:40 PM
considering the wikipedia article about wikipedia expressly states this... I am not sure why anyone is surprised?

"Although the policies of Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture);[18] and because it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial processes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
 
2012-02-15 05:11:12 PM

timujin: FTFY


Yup, fark all authoritarian dick holes.
 
2012-02-15 05:12:24 PM

Lsherm: Much like the communists, Wiki editors only allow their "approved" history in the books.

Letting this author explain that there actually was evidence presented at the trial would ruin the "birth of the worker" narrative the labor movement associates with the Haymarket riots. Unless the anarchists were as clean as Jesus Christ, they can't possibly be martyrs, so any evidence to the contrary is to be erased.


Unionists and communists are never wrong. Understand that, citizen, or face the FEMA gulags. Praise Dear Obama and his glory as Eternal Leader.

\amidoinitrite?
 
2012-02-15 05:12:49 PM
Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true. There are tons of books written by fringe crackpots out there (not necessarily saying that this professor is one), and I'd be interested to hear the other side of the story from another historian. Also, while the professor undoubtedly knows more about this specific topic than the editors, the editors can't really be faulted for enforcing a policy that works 99 times out of 100.
 
2012-02-15 05:13:01 PM
Wikipedia is not a place where you put your independent research. As far as I know, that's always been the policy.
 
2012-02-15 05:13:23 PM

Elandriel: My college has expressly forbidden anyone from using Wikipedia as a source and has a standing policy of marking a 0 on any paper or project that cites it. Wikipedia cannot be considered reputable or scholarly because of these very kinds of individuals, and unforutnately it isn't a case of the few ruining it for the many, it is a case of most editors and admins have a serious chip on their shoulder and don't mind letting you know it.


I tend to use it more for the source collections at the bottom of the entries if I'm doing actual research. But citing it straight out? Ugh.
 
2012-02-15 05:13:42 PM
Let's get this out of the way:

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-02-15 05:14:19 PM
It seems that few people posting here understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. It's a compendium and summary of what has been published elsewhere. If the professor wants to change "conventional wisdom" he needs to do it via scholarly journals, articles, books, etc (i.e outside of Wikipedia) and when his revised version becomes the new conventional wisdom then Wikipedia will present it as such.

And, yes, Wikipedia is not to be trusted as a source. But it links to sources that can be trusted. That's what's meant by "verifiability".
 
2012-02-15 05:14:39 PM

SithLord: Unionists and communists are never wrong.


You should have cited that from conservapedia.
 
2012-02-15 05:16:06 PM
Wikipedia The Internet is not to be trusted as a source.

FTFY
 
2012-02-15 05:16:24 PM

Shabash: [files.sharenator.com image 504x504]

I love Wikipedia, but they should have some way to recognize and value the contributions of legitimate experts.


I would just like to point out that who're is the best contraction ever.
 
2012-02-15 05:16:51 PM
Having just read the article, he is actually claiming to do exactly what they said he did, only he adds the tag, "BUT I WAS RIGHT" on the end.

It's almost like he firmly believes that being right, on the internet, is sufficient, without being able to express himself or follow the rules of a public forum.

Removing a reference with only a casual throwaway citation in the discussion page IS bad form by Wikipedia standards.
Even if the minority opinion is accurate, removing references to the majority opinion without fully explaining the controversy IS bad form.
Doing all of that over and over while people try and explain what you SHOULD be doing IS vandalism.

He's just mad that people don't consider his credentials enough to overcome his lack of internet social skills. They told him, flat out, stop removing the inaccurate information, just identify it as possibly inaccurate and cite the expanded information.

You don't just get to redact the people you believe are wrong without proving it.
 
2012-02-15 05:19:21 PM
weknowmemes.com
 
2012-02-15 05:20:06 PM
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a peer-reviewed journal. It collects the majority opinions of experts and cites to them. It does not and cannot weigh the veracity of opposing views and decide which are "right." To do that would require that Wikipedia employ experts capable of performing an adequate peer review on every possible topic, which would be impossible. Instead, Wikipedia cites to sources that are peer reviewed.

If he wants his views on the issue cited on the page, instead of deleting the portions he considers to be inaccurate, he needs to add a line stating something along the lines of "Recent research in the area suggests an alternate viewpoint" and then cite his article. Wikipedia may or may not let that kind of edit stand, but a cite that provides additional information is much more likely to stand than an edit that deletes an old citation and replaces it with a new one that disagrees with it.

So to the author I say 1) Learn the difference between an encyclopedia and a peer reviewed journal and 2) learn how to work within the confines of the system you are attempting to utilize. Both of those should be easy to do for someone with a Ph.D.
 
2012-02-15 05:20:39 PM
I know, right? I totally get where this guy is coming from.

Every time I change the entry for the Cleveland Spiders (new window) to note that they were originally known as the "Steamers" and featured a brown mascot named "Turdy", it gets deleted in like 10 minutes. WTF?
 
2012-02-15 05:20:59 PM
something something.. when the legend becomes fact, print the legend... something something.
or is it when the facts become legend? oh who knows. who cares anyway? i am still mad about the whole stephen colbert/elephant debacle.
 
2012-02-15 05:22:22 PM

slayer199: I told my son when he started high school not to rely on Wikipedia, that he could use it as a starting point to find sources but not to write any papers based only on a wiki page.


That sounds like what I learned in high school about print encyclopedias available in the library. Whether it's Wikipedia or Britannica, an encyclopedia is absolutely a great way to start research about a subject you know nothing about, but it should never be cited as a source.
 
2012-02-15 05:22:24 PM

Talondel: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a peer-reviewed journal. It collects the majority opinions of experts and cites to them. It does not and cannot weigh the veracity of opposing views and decide which are "right." To do that would require that Wikipedia employ experts capable of performing an adequate peer review on every possible topic, which would be impossible. Instead, Wikipedia cites to sources that are peer reviewed.

If he wants his views on the issue cited on the page, instead of deleting the portions he considers to be inaccurate, he needs to add a line stating something along the lines of "Recent research in the area suggests an alternate viewpoint" and then cite his article. Wikipedia may or may not let that kind of edit stand, but a cite that provides additional information is much more likely to stand than an edit that deletes an old citation and replaces it with a new one that disagrees with it.

So to the author I say 1) Learn the difference between an encyclopedia and a peer reviewed journal and 2) learn how to work within the confines of the system you are attempting to utilize. Both of those should be easy to do for someone with a Ph.D.


Or, for example, what he should have done in this case is attempt to explain the difference between the view points. You can say that a certain bias to reports have crept in, and explain it, but you don't just get to say "All those bastards were lying". He's being arrogant and acting like a petulant student is giving him lip during class, but in this situation, he's being the twatwaffle.
 
2012-02-15 05:22:25 PM
There's a difference between an "inaccuracy" and a "misconception."

The way this guy should've done it is to edit the article with something like, "...though recent research may suggest that the evidence in the trial was more robust than previously thought."
 
2012-02-15 05:22:33 PM
i stopped contributing to wikipedia like 5 years ago over this shiat.. people are just catching on now?

uh_clem: It seems that few people posting here understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. It's a compendium and summary of what has been published elsewhere. If the professor wants to change "conventional wisdom" he needs to do it via scholarly journals, articles, books, etc (i.e outside of Wikipedia) and when his revised version becomes the new conventional wisdom then Wikipedia will present it as such.

And, yes, Wikipedia is not to be trusted as a source. But it links to sources that can be trusted. That's what's meant by "verifiability".


wikipedia articles on subjects are often biased because if one of the Arbcom board members has a bias - and they usually get away with it by being "bias via omission"

missing contradictory evidence, etc.
 
2012-02-15 05:22:46 PM
And this is why we don't cite Wiki-anything as reliable sources, and any reputable teacher/professor/ or educated person would know better than to cite Wikipedia as a source.
 
2012-02-15 05:22:48 PM

spyderqueen: Elandriel: My college has expressly forbidden anyone from using Wikipedia as a source and has a standing policy of marking a 0 on any paper or project that cites it. Wikipedia cannot be considered reputable or scholarly because of these very kinds of individuals, and unforutnately it isn't a case of the few ruining it for the many, it is a case of most editors and admins have a serious chip on their shoulder and don't mind letting you know it.

I tend to use it more for the source collections at the bottom of the entries if I'm doing actual research. But citing it straight out? Ugh.


I assumed that's what everyone used it for. If someone uses it for a primary source, they need to start chugging bleach.
 
Displayed 50 of 361 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report