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  
•       •       •

24221 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
 
2012-02-16 12:32:05 AM

Fark Me To Tears: Do you feel that weird sensation? That's the "oh, sh*t" moment that all those online degree earners are experiencing right about now: "Y-y-you mean,,, Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate? B-b-but... my online professors told me it is..."


I have taken some classes from a web based, nonprofit, regionally accredited, school. (yes they do exist)

The department guidance, and the individual instructors were very clear that wikipedia was an unacceptable source. Most of our research outside the primary texts was to be conducted through Lexis Nexus and other legitimate research databases.

Perhaps my experience is not standard, but I think you will find that even places like University of Phoenix have disavowed Wikipedia.
 
2012-02-16 12:32:10 AM

Talondel: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a peer-reviewed journal.


Wikipedia is neither of these things. It's a website run by people who are neither an authority on anything or certified in the least. If you write anything to it that comes into conflict with the resident petty dictator lording over it, they revert it, regardless of it's truth and accuracy.

Encyclopedias are actually written by professional fact checkers who contact professionals on the subjects.

Peer-review journals are written by certified professionals in the field.

Wikipedia is mostly useless biased garbage, wholly uncitable, and written by underachievers who desperately want a little power.
 
2012-02-16 12:38:08 AM

MooseUpNorth: Paragraphs two, three and four are the load bearing arguments that support the thesis. Paragraph five is the conclusion.


Again, don't think we're using the same terminology here. These paragraphs usually contained citations to source material to back up the overall thesis later on. An argument without cited sources is- at least academically- an argument not worth having.

When I wrote these sorts of papers- and the more complex ones that came later in college- there was an overall "narrative" that I'd usually follow in the middle of the paper- which was usually just a logical progression of citation and if necessary, any personal interpretation one needed to have in order to eventually arrive at a conclusion, where I'd sorta wrap all those citations and thoughts into a neat package in support of the thesis.

I... guess you could call some of the "interpreting" and "narrative" a sort of mini-argument... I guess. But really, if you're spending too much time interpreting or narrating (even with credible source material) it makes an observant reader begin to wonder just how much you're stretching things.

Case in point, I had a reputedly "hard-grader" of a first English professor early on in college who was easily distracted by 50-cent words. Sounds cliche, doesn't it? Well, if it lends any more believability to my story, part of the class was peer review, and I personally reviewed at least one paper that was considerably better than my own, yet lacked some... vocabulary, shall we say. Mine was loaded with as many five and seven syllable words as you could get in there without calling in Favors from Julie Andrews. He got the C and I got an A+.

Anyway, you could use all the flowery lingo to obscure to this guy just how much bullshiat you'd packed the mid-portion with and just how much you stretched the validity of your source material. After paper number one, I pretty much had him figured- and given his own inflated view of himself (beware any professor that makes you read his own book as an example of great writing)- lost no sleep over abusing the crap out of his shortsightedness.

In some cases I tweaked the tone of things- statements, quotations, and in other places I just outright mutated source material into some perverse opposite of what a more objective read might have otherwise given the scholar. In short, I baffled this twat with bullshiat, and I was quite good at it.

Anyway, moral of the story: supporting the unproven thesis with other arguments that you in turn, need to prove, is only really advisable if you have an English professor whose so full of himself that he has to hang a cup out his ass to catch the excess.

And if you happen to be in such a situation, then by all means have at it and let the hilarity ensue.
 
2012-02-16 12:55:18 AM

redmid17: I also go out of my way to make judgments from a place of ignorance.


The more I learned, the more I realized I know nothing.

The distance of the earth to the edge of the observable universe is 4.6 × 1010 light years away. That's 46 billion and that's only the universe we can see. What we know definitively is more likely within our own solar system (with Eris as the border) and that's 30 light hours across (or 15 if you count the sun to Eris.)

Imagine just how much we know of that - in comparison to all that exists in the universe. One would have to conclude that we, as human beings, know very, very little of the cosmos and how many things remain undiscovered.

Frankly, we all make judgments from a place of ignorance - The most important difference is, just how much are each of us are willing to admit our ignorance. I admitted mine and trust me, I will always admit ignorance among any subject and I am willing to learn more to rectify that to my best of abilities.
 
2012-02-16 12:58:11 AM

CrispFlows: redmid17: I also go out of my way to make judgments from a place of ignorance.

The more I learned, the more I realized I know nothing.

The distance of the earth to the edge of the observable universe is 4.6 × 1010 light years away. That's 46 billion and that's only the universe we can see. What we know definitively is more likely within our own solar system (with Eris as the border) and that's 30 light hours across (or 15 if you count the sun to Eris.)

Imagine just how much we know of that - in comparison to all that exists in the universe. One would have to conclude that we, as human beings, know very, very little of the cosmos and how many things remain undiscovered.

Frankly, we all make judgments from a place of ignorance - The most important difference is, just how much are each of us are willing to admit our ignorance. I admitted mine and trust me, I will always admit ignorance among any subject and I am willing to learn more to rectify that to my best of abilities.


csb
 
2012-02-16 01:02:57 AM

Silverstaff: Kazan: i stopped contributing to wikipedia like 5 years ago over this shiat.. people are just catching on now?


Dramatic crap like this is also why i gave up on contributing to Wikipedia, it's part of the same reason I think Bullshido is crap too.

Kinda CSB time:

About 7 years ago or so, I decided to write a Wikipedia article for a small martial arts system I studied. The founder had written several books on martial arts and dozens of articles for various martial arts magazines, and he'd been teaching for several decades a style he'd created, and had a half-dozen or so schools in this part of the country founded by his students and using his curriculum and methods.

I thought it met the notability criteria for Wikipedia, since I could find a half-dozen newspaper articles talking about the school, not to mention the various martial arts books the founder had written that mentioned/discussed his style, and some ancillary mentions I could dig up in other publications (like the Alumni Association magazine of the founder's alma mater mentioning him as a successful alumni and briefly listing his accomplishments including founding that school).

So, I worked hard on the article, and after dozens and dozens of edits I had what I thought was a decent, but kinda basic article about the school and style.

Two problems:

One, a disgruntled former student who had a personal conflict with the founder decided to come on there and try to turn it into an attack piece "debunking" the school and calling it, and the founder, fraudulent, and later slapping "citation needed" tags on virtually every sentence. He was also trying to reword everything with "weasel words", to use the Wiki slang, to make everything sound more dubious (like: "suchandsuch claims that he teaches this style based on what he claims is the. . ."

Going back and forth with this asshole drained a lot of enthusiasm, as we edit-warred back and forth for months, as he used a slew of IP addresses and alts. I learned ...


Stories like this are the primary reason why if and when I decide to start teaching urban escape, evasion and practical self defense, I will NEVER offer combatives to any but students I know personally and can trust not to pull shiat like the absolute idiocy I see on bullshido.

Come by and "duel" you? I'm going to stab you in the throat with my kubaton you idiot. This is about survival dipshiat, not "honor."
 
2012-02-16 01:33:36 AM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: [colbertrally.com image 446x582]


Show is going to be awesome tomorrow.
 
2012-02-16 01:39:59 AM
Ah, a rare thread when I can wear both my college teacher and writing tutor hats.

Wikipedia is not a valid source because of the fact that is endlessly edited to the point that a cited page may no longer contain any of the same content the next time it is accessed. I generally encourage my students to avoid citing websites outside of online journals and scholarly databases.

However, Wikipedia is still a great tool to get a cursory idea of any given subject, as well as to gather ideas for research topics, not to mention links to what might be viable sources.

It's a great tool for students, but nowhere near worthy of being actually cited itself.

As for what happened in this case, I have to agree with Wikipedia here. If his article and evidence become accepted within his field, then they get recognized in a non-scholarly wiki. If they didn't have this restriction, conspiracy nuts could overrun the site with every pet theory that fits a single fact of a subject.
 
2012-02-16 01:40:33 AM

Yukon Callmeal: dumbgai: A statement that "no evidence was presented", or even the now present "no credible evidence was presented", is obviously slanted and dubious on its face.


I always heard it said that the prosecution was able to get convictions without presenting evidence that any of the defendants had thrown the bombs, helped build them, conspired in the attack, or even knew about the plans beforehand. The defendants were held responsible collectively as promoters and organizers of the event. Because of this, the trial was widely considered a travesty of justice.

This is why the the question 'what did they talk about' is not as obvious as it seems. However, it seems like the author has found some contrary evidence that at the very least makes that depiction a gross simplification. He should have done as a lot of other posters are encouraging, namely added his evidence without deleting the previous claims.
 
2012-02-16 01:43:10 AM

Lumpmoose: "Primary sources" vs. "secondary sources" was one of the most basic things I was taught before I started writing essays in high school. Encyclopedias don't count for either.


I don't recall being taught that encyclopedias don't count as secondary sources. I don't recall for sure but I think I cited encyclopedias as sources in some of the reports I wrote in middle school. I know I used other types of sources as well - encyclopedias just didn't go into enough detail to write the length of the reports we were required to write.

Wikipedia serves a purpose and the topic of the Haymarket riot is a great example of what I use it for. It's not interesting enough for me to research thoroughly but I do want to have a general idea of what it was. Sure, I have to take everything with a grain of salt but that's true for almost anything you read on the internet. (I say almost because you can actually find trustworthy facts on the internet (technical manuals make up a lot of that type of material)).

Anyway, the last time I looked up Haymarket to refresh my memory I came away with the impression that the trial was a sham but now I am not sure. Of course I wasn't that sure before based on the fact that I only skimmed the Wikipedia entry.

Currently Wikipedia says this: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, argued that the person who had thrown the bomb was not discouraged to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were therefore equally responsible."

That is somewhat more informative (and hopefully more accurate) than "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... "

Either statement could be verified or proven false by going to a primary source (transcript of the trial) which if I really cared that much I would read.

But that's the thing. I do not have enough interest in this to read the farking transcript which is why I turn to Wikipedia. I could never take the time to become an expert in everything I've ever looked up there. Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible and if primary sources contradict overwhelmingly popular opinion that should be noted.

It sounds like this guy just got into a pissing match with someone else who considered themselves an expert on the subject. That's counterproductive and the 2 statements quoted above are in fact contradictory.

I've never delved into the world of wiki editing but apparently this shiat goes on all the time. It's like farking watching Wonderland and thinking that I know the facts about John Holmes' life. All I really know is that he was a porn star with a big dick. I know that because I've seen some movies he's been in. Everything else is just legend or mythology which may or may not be true.

So as a result I know a little about a lot of things and most of it is probably wrong.
 
2012-02-16 01:44:09 AM

on the road: He should have done as a lot of other posters are encouraging, namely added his evidence without deleting the previous claims.


But his new claims directly contradict the old ones.
 
2012-02-16 01:49:21 AM
WP is like communism. Sounds a good idea in theory but does not work in real life as it relies on people not being assholes; and many are. I gave up on WP years ago. Too many opinionated mouth-breathing retards with too much power.
 
2012-02-16 01:52:29 AM
Here's a question: Suppose this article had been written by Bjorn Lomborg, and he said "I've written a book which explains why there's no such thing as Global Warming, and I've cited lots of articles that back me up, but Wikipedia still claims that most scientists believe in Global Warming!"

Fetch the WAAAAAHHHHHMBULANCE.
 
2012-02-16 01:53:21 AM

Strolpol: Ah, a rare thread when I can wear both my college teacher and writing tutor hats.

Wikipedia is not a valid source because of the fact that is endlessly edited to the point that a cited page may no longer contain any of the same content the next time it is accessed. I generally encourage my students to avoid citing websites outside of online journals and scholarly databases.

However, Wikipedia is still a great tool to get a cursory idea of any given subject, as well as to gather ideas for research topics, not to mention links to what might be viable sources.

It's a great tool for students, but nowhere near worthy of being actually cited itself.

As for what happened in this case, I have to agree with Wikipedia here. If his article and evidence become accepted within his field, then they get recognized in a non-scholarly wiki. If they didn't have this restriction, conspiracy nuts could overrun the site with every pet theory that fits a single fact of a subject.


He was citing direct testimony from the Library of Congress.
 
2012-02-16 01:58:34 AM

redmid17: He was citing direct testimony from the Library of Congress.


Which is not Wikipedia's policy on preferred sources. You're free to disagree that policy. But you're not free to unilaterally change it.
 
2012-02-16 02:05:48 AM

gwowen: redmid17: He was citing direct testimony from the Library of Congress.

Which is not Wikipedia's policy on preferred sources. You're free to disagree that policy. But you're not free to unilaterally change it.


It exceeds all Acceptable Source points and completely complies with the primary source. There's no interpretation or original research. It's literally lifting the words of the court. It's both reliable and useful.
 
2012-02-16 02:19:29 AM

jjorsett: I like the part where "primary sources" like the actual trial transcripts in the Library of Congress aren't to be used in favor of "secondary sources," i.e. people's opinions and interpretations. Combined with a policy that favors a majoritarian viewpoint based on nonsense over a minority one based on verifiable facts, plus permitting the capturing of topics by thin-skinned partisan martinets, it seems like a system designed to deliver inaccurate bullshiat.


Well said. I had given up on Wikipedia years ago over this same insane internal wrangling. Nice to know that nothing's changed and the same monkeys are still flinging poop behind the scenes.
 
2012-02-16 02:20:52 AM

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.


Citing Wikipedia is the 2nd most laziest thing to do on a research paper. The 1st is to not cite your sources at all, of course.
 
2012-02-16 02:30:20 AM
Just wanted to point out this tidbit from the Wikipedia entry:

On the eve of his scheduled execution, Lingg committed suicide in his cell with a smuggled dynamite cap which he reportedly held in his mouth like a cigar (the blast blew off half his face and he survived in agony for six hours).

Way to cheat the hangman dumbass.

If you're going to commit suicide, do it quickly and with certainty.
 
2012-02-16 03:06:52 AM
Okay... seriously. It's a freaking website on the intertubes! I think I'm gonna start citing Fark comments as fact. Oh no wait... even better, I'll start freaking out on the mods and admins because I posted something factually correct and the rest of the thread ignored me or called me an idiot. That'll be SURE to prove I am an authority on the subject and is completely logically and professional.

WAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! I MADE A SMART!!!!

LOOOOOKKKAAAAATTTTTMMMMEEEEEEE!11eleven
 
2012-02-16 03:07:06 AM
Truth is not decided by a majority vote... except on wikipedia?
 
2012-02-16 03:20:26 AM
Wikipedians can be dicks, news at 11. Two tabs over, we have politics tab. Fark ain't exactly the higher ground here.

A poignant sort of list-essay (pops) that probably could have defused the whole situation, if anyone had bothered to listen.
 
2012-02-16 04:53:11 AM

SkunkWerks: MooseUpNorth: Paragraphs two, three and four are the load bearing arguments that support the thesis. Paragraph five is the conclusion.

Again, don't think we're using the same terminology here.


Clearly so.
 
2012-02-16 06:13:24 AM

slayer199:
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.


It's handy for Internet wall pissing contests but I wouldn't want to cite it as a source in anything that really mattered. It tends to be a bit American centric (unsurprising) so you get oddities such as until relatively recently it's Atari ST page missed off the 520STFM (512Kb RAM, with TV out, with built-in floppy) as only the 1040STFM (1MB RAM) was released in the States or the 520 was really unpopular there.
 
2012-02-16 06:16:13 AM

SharkTrager: This is the basic flaw in wikipedia. If 1,000 sources say something, even if they don't back up that claim, that's what will be in Wikipedia. In this case he actually did prove that at very least one "fact" was wrong, and the court transcripts absolutely proved that, yet consensus wins even when it's proven wrong.

That said, he absolutely edited it incorrectly.


Main problem: He never scanned and linked to the transcripts. Oh, sure, he said that they said what he said they did. But did they? His first citation was his own blog - which wasn't even public, requiring a password to view articles. Not only that, but some of his claims were left unmolested from the beginning, only the main contentious claim of evidence vs no evidence was thrown out. Now we know, years later, because he published his books with extensive appendices and put those documents online. But at the time, those transcripts were unavailable, and could easily have been made up out of whole cloth. Why would you automatically trust him?
 
2012-02-16 06:36:43 AM

foxyshadis: he said that they said what he said they did.


Is this a Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, or Australian Source?
 
2012-02-16 06:44:59 AM

enderthexenocide: This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

they have that little line at the bottom of tons of short articles. so i was browsing wikipedia one day and decided to do just that. i added filmographies of a few actors, gave some a little biographical information about some other people, maybe 20 additions in all. all of them were on short pages that said "this article is a stub. you can help wikipedia by expanding it."

within one day, each one of those edits was reverted. when i checked the edit page, they were all changed back because they were "irrelevant" or "unsourced." because apparently, an actor's filmography is irrelevant, and you only have to provide sources for the biological information of obscure people.

that was the last time i bothered to edit wikipedia.


Yes, because if there's anything Wikipedia should be based on, it's what you think you remember hearing one time about obscure people - or maybe even what lots of people have rumored about some obscure person, after all, it's all over the IMDB forums and a few Geocities pages.
 
2012-02-16 06:54:56 AM

SkunkWerks: foxyshadis: he said that they said what he said they did.

Is this a Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, or Australian Source?


Depends on if we're talking Rugby or Football.
 
2012-02-16 07:57:42 AM
Didn't Wikipedia announce fairly recently some program to give contributors/editors who could be verified as experts in a particular field more weight to their edits in order to address this sort of issue?
 
2012-02-16 08:56:53 AM

Heron:

Yeah. However, I find relying on websites for scholarly papers generally worrisome. There are good places like JSTOR and LexisNexis that are wonderful stores of primary sources, but when most universities have such great libraries, why rely on the internet for secondary research?


Probably because most students have no clue how to use those systems and are only dimly aware of them at best.

I never used LexisNexis until my senior year, in a 500-Level Political Science class (officially a class in judicial process, unofficially it was a class in legal research) and the professor had to show us the system since nobody in the class had ever used it.

JSTOR is another system most undergrads never even hear of. Heck, I'm only dimly aware of it. To use it at the university I went to required going to the main library and using it on one of several workstations specially set aside for it.

So, from a typical student's perspective, they can go to the library and fiddle around with specialized systems they don't know how to use that have to be accessed from special workstations and can't be pulled up from their home/apartment/dorm room. . .or they can type something in Google and get an answer in 5 seconds. Since they've been trusting these sources since long before they came to college, it's not an easy behavior to change.

10 or 15 years ago, yeah, researching things on the Internet was harder and you might have to go to the library anyway, but now it's a different world and an 18 year old Freshman who has been looking things up on Google and Wikipedia since he was first online in Junior High or earlier is going to look at you funny when you say you've got to go down to the library to use a specific computer to access a special database that you he can't access from home. . .he's going to wonder why he can't just Google it.
 
2012-02-16 09:02:21 AM

Hector Remarkable: Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.


Yes, and as we know, the only purpose of any repository of information is for it to be used as a "source". "Source for what?", you ask. The research papers we're writing all the time for our science jobs at the laboratories where we work making room-temperature semi-conductors and curing genetic disorders.

Wikipedia is a marvel: information which used to cost thousands of dollars to access is now available for free anywhere in the world. It is meant to replace the paper encyclopedias some of us grew up with, and it does a fantastic job of that. Yet, every time I read any opinion on wikipedia, it's focused on some perceived flaw. It's like complaining that the side of a skyscraper is a poor place to grow crops.

Haters gonna hate!
 
2012-02-16 09:05:51 AM

Phototoxin: Truth is not decided by a majority vote... except on wikipedia?


And a few southern states where truth and belief are somewhat consufed.
 
2012-02-16 09:07:27 AM

entropic_existence: Didn't Wikipedia announce fairly recently some program to give contributors/editors who could be verified as experts in a particular field more weight to their edits in order to address this sort of issue?


Newt is gonna need a job soon.
He is so good at rewriting history, I nominate him for Wiki Chief.
 
2012-02-16 10:17:26 AM
How is this not surprising to me? I have noticed several "politically biased" articles on there that even the Slate would be embarrassed to publish.lol. I simply used to edit and list things as pet-friendly so folks would arrive with their dog for a beer and be all sad and realize wiki was shiat.

/If I was right for 3 weeks, anyone can be...
 
2012-02-16 12:00:56 PM

Silverstaff:


Bullshido is full of self-important farkwits who think they are the self-appointed police of the martial arts world and they alone decide the legitimacy of any martial arts training.

Frank Dux is unquestionably a fraud (so is Ashida Kim), but Bullshido is not as important as they think they are.

Fark Bullshido.


I won't white knight for Bullshido too hard mostly because they don't need me to do it but I am curious as to which MA you think is maligned unfairly by them. I can see some Bullies taking themselves too seriously but who else is gonna' call BS on guys like Dillman, Kim, and Elmore ? Sherdog is full of anime fanbois and LARPers and that's how guys like Dux earn a living by making crap up.
 
2012-02-16 12:10:30 PM

dumbgai: 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.


Definitely someone writing a book does not make it true. Otherwise creationism and birtherism would be true. I agree, in general the policy does work most of the time, but this looks like an exception.

But what is sounds to what has happened is "facts" about bombing have been copied from one source to another over a decade leading to false account. That the account seem strange occurred to a student result in a history professor going back and checking the primary sources showing that the account was wrong.

That is actually a fairly common situation: that old and accepted account has to be rewritten when someone looks at the primary sources possibly for the first time in decades.

Maybe the history prof should instead of going directly to Wikipedia citing his own book, should try to get some of the original documents online. Get a scanner and put the transcript online where anyone can verify it. Sources that are found only in one paper archive are not much use for Wikipedia. Then do the edit like: "At the trial the attorney for the defense admitted they made bomb [insert quote] and made their case for innocience on self-defense [insert quote]. Add the citation with page number and link. This should be acceptable for Wikipedia. If not it needs to change.

And of course, Wikipedia like any encyclopedia should be used to get up to speed and not as a citation. People getting crap from encyclopedias did not start with the invention of Wikipedia.
 
2012-02-16 12:16:17 PM

TheMysteriousStranger: dumbgai: 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.

Definitely someone writing a book does not make it true. Otherwise creationism and birtherism would be true. I agree, in general the policy does work most of the time, but this looks like an exception.

But what is sounds to what has happened is "facts" about bombing have been copied from one source to another over a decade leading to false account. That the account seem strange occurred to a student result in a history professor going back and checking the primary sources showing that the account was wrong.

That is actually a fairly common situation: that old and accepted account has to be rewritten when someone looks at the primary sources possibly for the first time in decades.

Maybe the history prof should instead of going directly to Wikipedia citing his own book, should try to get some of the original documents online. Get a scanner and put the transcript online where anyone can verify it. Sources that are found only in one paper archive are not much use for Wikipedia. Then do the edit like: "At the trial the attorney for the defense admitted they made bomb [insert quote] and made their case for innocience on self-defense [insert quote]. Add the citation with page number and link. This should be acceptable for Wikipedia. If not it needs to change.

And of course, Wikipedia like any encyclopedia should be used to get up to speed and not as a citation. People getting crap from encyclopedias did not start with the invention of Wikipedia.


You mean like this: Link (new window)

Library of Congress source material has been online for awhile. Wikipedia editors were farktards in this particular situation. It's the same middle level management, red-tape, over-bureaucratic shiat people always lampoon in movies. He didn't fill out the TPS report 8 times, just enough with all the relevant qualifications.
 
2012-02-16 12:34:29 PM
This invalidates any justification for Wikipedia's existence. Its managers should be sued out of existence.
 
2012-02-16 12:50:51 PM
Late to the party but thought I'd chime in. There is a wikipedia article about me. It has numerous errors of fact. The correct information can be easily found by going to primary sources. As a teaching tool I would sometimes mention to students the events that article related to and ask them to write a short summary. I would then grade it and take off points for the inaccuracies. They would then complain that Wikipedia said this and Wikipedia said that. Then came the teaching moment. I think most of them came away with a better understanding of Wikipedia.
 
2012-02-16 12:57:56 PM

tuckeg: Late to the party but thought I'd chime in. There is a wikipedia article about me. It has numerous errors of fact. The correct information can be easily found by going to primary sources. As a teaching tool I would sometimes mention to students the events that article related to and ask them to write a short summary. I would then grade it and take off points for the inaccuracies. They would then complain that Wikipedia said this and Wikipedia said that. Then came the teaching moment. I think most of them came away with a better understanding of Wikipedia.


I would have turned in a collection of your finest Fark quotes.
 
2012-02-16 01:28:30 PM

Canton: whiz


I have actually had to put on my rubric that any use of Wikipedia or non-media based .com sites will automatically result in points deducted. A wide majority of students merely trolled Google--and they are in their second year.
 
2012-02-16 01:35:53 PM

One Bad Apple: Silverstaff:


Bullshido is full of self-important farkwits who think they are the self-appointed police of the martial arts world and they alone decide the legitimacy of any martial arts training.

Frank Dux is unquestionably a fraud (so is Ashida Kim), but Bullshido is not as important as they think they are.

Fark Bullshido.

I won't white knight for Bullshido too hard mostly because they don't need me to do it but I am curious as to which MA you think is maligned unfairly by them. I can see some Bullies taking themselves too seriously but who else is gonna' call BS on guys like Dillman, Kim, and Elmore ? Sherdog is full of anime fanbois and LARPers and that's how guys like Dux earn a living by making crap up.


I'm not going to defend the likes of Frank Dux and Ashida Kim, or scam chains like ATA, but Bullshido has long since gone from exposing frauds to acting like everything that is not MMA is a fraud.

For example, Bullshido is the only martial arts community I know of that considers Aikido to be fraudulent and Morihei Ueshiba to be a scam artist.

Here's the thread (starting where I came in) where I waded into Bullshido deciding that the art I studied was "unbelievably bad" to quote the original poster of the thread Link (new window) . . .where I was called mentally ill for not being an atheist, a "disgrace to the martial arts community" for not being an MMA fighter, and generally considered a delusional fool for daring to step in there and try to provide facts to a discussion filled with ignorance and hatred.

A few days on there was all I needed to know that those self-appointed police of martial arts legitimacy have long since gone from exposing the truly awful con artists to presuming that everybody who doesn't set foot into an octagonal cage is inferior.
 
2012-02-16 01:36:10 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Canton: whiz

I have actually had to put on my rubric that any use of Wikipedia or non-media based .com sites will automatically result in points deducted. A wide majority of students merely trolled Google--and they are in their second year.


Of course, the best way to use Wiki for papers is to go read the wiki article, and then harvest it for citations.
 
2012-02-16 01:42:30 PM

Edymnion: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Canton: whiz

I have actually had to put on my rubric that any use of Wikipedia or non-media based .com sites will automatically result in points deducted. A wide majority of students merely trolled Google--and they are in their second year.

Of course, the best way to use Wiki for papers is to go read the wiki article, and then harvest it for citations.


Indeed, but that would take some brainpower. Most of them simply used the cite exactly as it was presented in Wiki, and referred to books that weren't even in our library. Two big clues right there.

/a better time was when a student copied a Wikipedia article on William Carlos Williams and turned it in
//complete with pictures and footnotes
///and html links in the upper corner
////it was an accident, of course
 
2012-02-16 02:04:13 PM
You did this already with your previous posts.

here to help: Okay... seriously. It's a freaking website on the intertubes! I think I'm gonna start citing Fark comments as fact. Oh no wait... even better, I'll start freaking out on the mods and admins because I posted something factually correct and the rest of the thread ignored me or called me an idiot. That'll be SURE to prove I am an authority on the subject and is completely logically and professional.

WAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! I MADE A SMART!!!!

LOOOOOKKKAAAAATTTTTMMMMEEEEEEE!11eleven

 
2012-02-16 02:21:06 PM

Silverstaff:


I'm not going to defend the likes of Frank Dux and Ashida Kim, or scam chains like ATA, but Bullshido has long since gone from exposing frauds to acting like everything that is not MMA is a fraud.

For example, Bullshido is the only martial arts community I know of that considers Aikido to be fraudulent and Morihei Ueshiba to be a scam artist.

Here's the thread (starting where I came in) where I waded into Bullshido deciding that the art I studied was "unbelievably bad" to quote the original poster of the thread Link (new window) . . .where I was called mentally ill for not being an atheist, a "disgrace to the martial arts community" for not being an MMA fighter, and generally considered a delusional fool for daring to step in there and try to provide facts to a discussion filled with ignorance and hatred.

A few days on there was all I needed to know that those self-appointed police of martial arts legitimacy have long since gone from exposing the truly awful con artists to presuming that everybody who doesn't set foot into an octagonal cage is inferior.



Ahhh Akido.A perfectly reasonable excuse for grown men to wear dresses and hold hands. I was gonna' guess some kind of wing chun. I personally share the greater opinion of Bullshido on that particular MA because I have never seen akido used in anything approaching reality. The akido apologist don't do much to help when they constantly try to derail the discussion into magical thinking about spirituality and chi.

Bullshido tends to nutride MMA and those martial arts that demonstrate success therein because direct competition (like the UFC) is the closest thing to a peer review process that the martial arts has had in my lifetime. Before that guys like Dux and Kim became essentially MA cult leaders. They never had to produce results only stories about "how this one time at band camp" their technique worked. Akido guys seem to do this a lot too. To the exclusion of ever demonstrating their techniques on a live resisting opponent. It's always "grab my wrist ...no not that way" and there is never any footage of akido being successfully used on anyone but compliant students that are quite obviously flinging themselves through the air whenever the sensei so much as brushes a hand near them. I see better fake fight choreography in pro wrestling than any youtube vid of akido.


Maybe you are the exception. Maybe your stuff would actually work in a fight but you'll never know because you won't ever step up and compete. That is the primary source of the animosity towards you. Nobody that actually uses their MA to impose their will on a person actually doing their best to fight back wants to listen to some dry land swimmer tell them that a previously unproven style is more effective than what they use and see used all the time.

Since 1993 certain MAs have NEVER shown themselves to actually be useful against other MAs and MMA is where we saw them debunked over and over again. Until some akidoka somewhere steps up and shows us all that it works in real life it will be regarded as a martial LARP. You can wrap it up in faux spirituality and claim magical powers but it is not a fighting art.


A much belated "Welcome to Fark Bullshido" for you.
 
2012-02-16 02:52:59 PM
Well, Wikipedia is better than nothing. And, I'm going to continue to use it as a quick and easy source for trivial information. I wouldn't use it as the be-all, end-all source for anything of any importance, but I also wouldn't use just about any single source for important tasks. It's important to use the most relevant, reputable sources (first-person preferably) and to use as many as possible.
 
2012-02-16 03:29:50 PM

One Bad Apple: It's always "grab my wrist ...no not that way"


Approves.
 
2012-02-16 03:48:19 PM
The usage of Wikipedia as a sole reference to a piece of fact increases the likelyhood that the person citing Wikipedia doesn't know what he is talking about. So "any post citing Wikipedia as a factual source automatically ends the discussion that contains it".

T.O.'s Law Link (new window)
 
2012-02-16 03:48:44 PM
I love a good Wiki vandal.

A long time ago I was reading the entry for Rocky 4 (I can't remember why. Probably because it was my favorite movie as a kid), and in the plot summary was a paragraph about how Rocky goes to meet with President Reagan for guidance for his upcomming fight with Dragous (sp?) and to discuss fight strategies. I laughed my ass off.
 
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