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
 
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.
 
2012-02-15 05:23:05 PM
I'd only trust Wikipedia to be accurate when talking about weeaboo shiat.
 
2012-02-15 05:23:07 PM

dumbgai: Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true.


well, there was that whole "verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" part...
 
2012-02-15 05:24:11 PM

Mr Guy: 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.


In other words, he's an academic. If he had any social skills or common sense to go along with his brilliance, he wouldn't have had years to spend researching the Haymarket riots.
 
2012-02-15 05:24:21 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.


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.
 
2012-02-15 05:24:43 PM

timujin: dumbgai: Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true.

well, there was that whole "verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" part...


Then you say, "This is what people have said, however, looking at the trial [citation] blah blah blah"

You don't just go, BALEETED.
 
2012-02-15 05:27:23 PM
What I don't understand is why people think wikipedia is somehow DIFFERENT from the previous. The only difference is the speed. There's plenty of books out that that have crap that's inaccurate or just plain wrong that served as sources to perpetuate more crap etc etc and then people think certain crap like is true because it's been in print forever.
 
2012-02-15 05:27:39 PM
30.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-02-15 05:27:39 PM
Wikipedia is useful in its convenience.
Nothing less, nothing more.
If you want real information, go to the farking library.
 
2012-02-15 05:28:03 PM
Looks like Wikipedia is another example of a good idea with tons of potential that got ruined by middle management or in this case, reviewers with an axe to grind.
 
2012-02-15 05:28:34 PM

jjwars1: 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.


Heh. I had a professor link two Wikipedia pages as mandatory class readings.

/a student promptly swapped the text on the two pages, with find-and-replace for the authors' names
 
2012-02-15 05:29:16 PM
/hotter than Angela in a nurses outfit...
 
2012-02-15 05:30:05 PM

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


[Citation needed]

/seriously, it's not really an encyclopedia. It's an extension of Googling.
//An encyclopedia has people that take responsibility for incorrect information.
 
2012-02-15 05:30:41 PM

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".


Yeah, I was on the author's side until I read this argument in the article:

"Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that."

That's the crux of it. Wikipedia is not humanity's de facto journal for every scientific pursuit. It can't function that way. That fact reduces its usefulness as a resource but that's just the way it is: it's not supposed to be your only resource. He seems to understand that in the conclusion but decided to be Mr. Snarky Blogger on the interwebs anyway.
 
2012-02-15 05:31:35 PM

Mr Guy: timujin: dumbgai: Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true.

well, there was that whole "verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" part...

Then you say, "This is what people have said, however, looking at the trial [citation] blah blah blah"

You don't just go, BALEETED.


It didn't read to me like that was what had happened, but rather more like what you suggested be done... meh, I've got no dog in this hunt.
 
2012-02-15 05:31:45 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.


I've seen enough examples where the sources it sites are dead links that I wouldn't be comfortable saying it "collects the majority opinions of experts". Makes me wonder why they don't have a bot that periodically checks the links to sources and if it comes back as page not found the section that is supposed to be supported by that link should be flagged.
 
2012-02-15 05:32:52 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 thought all encyclopedias, as a rule, were not considered credible sources for scholarly writing. At least, I've never read any actual, published papers that quote "Encyclopedia Britannica."
 
2012-02-15 05:33:16 PM
www.veryicon.com

LOOK OUT!
 
jvl
2012-02-15 05:33:44 PM

DarnoKonrad: Wikipedia is not a place where you put your independent research. As far as I know, that's always been the policy.


Yup. Wikipedia's got 99 problems, but this ain't one of them.

Dude should have explained it all on a talk page, pointed to his own peer-reviewed research and book, and let the editors have at it. J. Random Dude says he's an expert and wants to correct an error that is also in most history books? Yeah, talk first; edit second.
 
2012-02-15 05:34:21 PM

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


Well what do you expect from those libtards. Oh wait ...

E=mc2? Not on Conservapedia

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19303-emc2-not-on-conservapedia . html

clip - It seems that the folks at Conservapedia - a sort of conservative alternative to the more familar online encyclopedia Wikipedia - are not fans of Einstein's most famous theory, general relativity. In fact, they view it as a far-reaching liberal conspiracy.
 
2012-02-15 05:34:32 PM
Something my wife does when researching her history papers is look up the topics on Wikipedia and then check out the books listed as sources for the article. This allows her to come up with her own opinions and give her a starting point for her works cited list. That in addition to our school library and British Online Archives, most of her documents are covered.
 
2012-02-15 05:34:40 PM

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


Sure it is - the only problem is your peers are everyone.

/and Wikipedia is a wonderful illustration of why direct democracy is a bad idea - it would just turn into some Kafkaesque (Wikiesque?) bureaucracy.
 
2012-02-15 05:34:43 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.


Start charging?
 
2012-02-15 05:36:58 PM

sprawl15: I'd only trust Wikipedia to be accurate when talking about weeaboo shiat.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-02-15 05:37:33 PM
This has been a problem for awhile. As an example, Wikipedia used to have this huge, and very informative, entry on Macbeth the historical figure which also mentioned or linked to articles about lots of fiction and non-fiction works on the subject. Not only was it extensive, but it was even one of their "featured" articles held up as an example of what a wiki entry should be like for quite awhile. Then, around 2007, there suddenly started to be a large number of very active and nationalistic English editors who tore through the entry with little more than weight of numbers and the argument that there was no such thing as Scotland before England ran it. Kind of pissed me off at the time as I've always found the historical Macbeth an interesting figure, but I'm sure the same folks were responsible for similar biased edits on Irish, Welsh, and Cornish entries.
 
2012-02-15 05:38:41 PM

GranoblasticMan: 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 thought all encyclopedias, as a rule, were not considered credible sources for scholarly writing. At least, I've never read any actual, published papers that quote "Encyclopedia Britannica."


"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.
 
2012-02-15 05:38:44 PM
Sorry, but I agree with Wikipedia here. If 99% of sources say X and 1% say Y, then the 1% shouldn't rewrite the article so that it says their version is true.

It sounded to me like the Wiki Overlords were telling the guy that it would be fine if he change the article to say that most sources state that no evidence was offered, but that some sources say this and that and the other. What would have been so farking hard about that?

There are often differing opinions on things. Wikipedia shouldn't be a battleground where first Group writes their version and then Group B writes theirs, and back and forth they go. If there are differing opinions, then the article should say there are differing opinions.
 
2012-02-15 05:40:13 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.


Came here for that, left contented. The guy has a minority opinion, and instead of presenting it as an alternate opinion, he deleted the majority opinion (read "vandalized") and replaced it with his minority opinion, instead of doing what you're supposed to do on Wikipedia and present it as an alternate viewpoint. His citations would've stood up to review, and the editors wouldn't have had to whack him for summarily replacing content. But, instead, he thought that if he was an asshole, over and over again, well, they would just have to relent, right?

Based on his article, he:
1. Replaced existing content with his own content.
2. When his changes were reversed, a Wikipedia editor asked him to read the rules, specifically regarding civility.
3. Immediately attempted to repeat those changes again.
4. When his changes were then reversed, a Wikipedia editor then asked him to read the rules, this time regarding primary sources.
5. The chucklehead again attempted to repeat those changes.
6. The changes were again reversed, and he was cautioned regarding vandalism.
7. Pause two years, until his book on the subject comes out.
8. Attempted to repeat changes again.
9. When his changes were reversed yet again, a Wikipedia editor then asked him, yet again, to read the rules, this time regarding verifiability and undue weight.
10. He then wrote a long-winded whiny rant on how all of this was unfair to him, because he knows he's right.

That's the gist of it. They're not telling him he can't write a minority opinion - they're telling him he can't replace the majority opinion with his own. He doesn't like that, because he's right, after all, and so he's throwing a fit.
 
2012-02-15 05:40:33 PM
It took weeks for Sriracha sauce to be properly credit to Sriracha Panich as original products. This is common knowledge shiat in Thailand. Keep getting removed by someone thinking if it's not written in numerous sources in English, despite massive fact on its side. And it's already edited out some months ago, I gave up.
 
2012-02-15 05:42:21 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.


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?
 
2012-02-15 05:44:01 PM
P.S. As for writing your own book and then citing it as the source of your facts... There's a lot of BS in books. There are books that give breathless accounts of UFO encounters. I would HOPE that the Wikipedia entry notes that there is much disagreement about whether aliens have visited Earth. If someone who wrote a book about UFOs were allowed to write a completely one-sided UFO article for Wikipedia just because he has some books to his name, I think everyone would be singing a different tune.

I'm not saying that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm saying that writing a couple books doesn't mean that he automatically becomes the world's foremost scholar on the Haymarket riot, able to rewrite the Wikipedia entry with the truth as he sees it.
 
2012-02-15 05:44:56 PM
Wikipedia is extremely useful for what it's supposed to be - settling arguments that start in bars. The kinds of arguments that start, "No, that guy was in that TV series...."
 
2012-02-15 05:45:24 PM

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 wiki rules of notability, procedure, citation and such very well to back up what I was doing with policy and guideline by mentioning it on the talk page, and he'd just bulldoze past and change things anyway by saying he was just putting down the truth or just trying to expose somebody who was a liar, ect.

Around the same time, some dumbfark over at Bullshido ran across the article and decided it wasn't up to their standards of "legitimacy". Since the founder is a minister and teaches the school from a religious perspective, they started dogpiling on it as some cult or religiously motivated scam, and the fact that the school doesn't participate in MMA fighting seemed to seal the deal to them. I only found out about this thread because I was googling the school name for any other websites and ran across that discussion. I registered, went in there, and posted originally trying to debunk a lot of outright falsehoods they had "assumed" based on prejudices and narrow viewpoints.

Being civil, polite, rational, just seemed to make them angrier, as the Bullshido boneheads acted like every stereotypical 12-year-old boy on the internet, making horribly misspelled insults regarding religion and sexual orientation. I actually had several members challenge me to duels, wanting me to drive to their dojo to fight them to "prove" the "effectiveness" of my training in this school and saying they would stop trash-talking the school I studied at if I could beat them in a no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle fight, and if I wouldn't fight them or if I lost I would just prove that the school I trained at was a "McDojo" scam.

I started out wanting to share knowledge about a subject that had done good things in my life and for the lives of those around me, and came away from it bitter about wikipedia and having learned there is a cesspool of dumbfarks on the internet who fancy themselves the self-appointed guardians of what "real" martial arts are, and have decided that only MMA/UFC is sufficiently "legitimate".
 
2012-02-15 05:45:46 PM
You know, this reminds me, those science types keep telling us that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but I disagree. I believe it is the Sun that revolves around the Earth. And I'll prove it, too, once I get funding for a rocketship to fly to the Sun, which is a mere 2 million miles away. It's a straight shot, so it'll take no time at all.
 
2012-02-15 05:46:05 PM

Heron: 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?


Eh? I'm not sure I've seen any primary sources on JSTOR. They're almost all academic articles (i.e., secondary sources).
 
2012-02-15 05:46:09 PM

I_Am_Weasel: 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).


exactly.

What? The NYT, WaPo, WSJ and Wiki may slants the facts because of an agenda?

If you haven't gotten to the point where you can read an article from even the most biased source and be able to distinguish subjective from objective reporting, you're a yute.
 
2012-02-15 05:46:15 PM

dumbgai: Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true


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.

The problem with the Wikipedia model for editing politically charged topics is that people holding certain worldviews will be highly motivated to attain positions of authority to where they can present things as they would like them to be presented.
 
2012-02-15 05:46:22 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

www.demotivation.us

api.ning.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

/not sure where I was going with #3..
 
2012-02-15 05:46:43 PM
People who think wikipedia is a viable medium for truth are the same ones who forward stupid e-mails and Facebook posts that have been proven to be urban legends. "I read it on the the internet so it must be true."

The wIkipedia will also disallow information if it makes people uncomfortable. One of the towns I lived in as a child has a documented racial history in which free blacks were run out of town on a rail, but any time that is listed in the wikipedia article, it is removed. They have allowed a link to a source article, but they won't allow the actual information in the article. Link (new window)
 
2012-02-15 05:49:24 PM

SnakeLee: 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.


That's not trolling, it's being a shiatty, loathsome person. You'd be damaging his reputation and part of his livelihood ... and why? For the lulz?
 
2012-02-15 05:51:28 PM
And now Wikipedia will step in and make it correct.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease after all.
 
2012-02-15 05:51:58 PM

Trivia Jockey: That is a bunch of BS. Wikipedia needs a policy change if that's true.


Well its what a lot of us have been saying for a couple of years now, they present certain accepted norms as facts when there is very little data to back it up and if you dare present any dissension on certain hot button items, such as climate change then you will be shot down as uneducated, even if you put up a verifieable fact of the issue from hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Wiki is used as a reference point but it is not 100% accurate.
 
2012-02-15 05:52:06 PM
Author doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, tries to buck the system, gets shot down, whines about it.

News at 11.
 
2012-02-15 05:52:21 PM
As an aside, the premise that "the trial lasted six weeks and there were court-appointed experts there, therefore there was conclusive evidence" is illogical.

As another aside, "published in a peer-reviewed journal" does not mean "consensus view". "I wrote a book" also does not mean "consensus view". Even among *gasp* experts.
 
2012-02-15 05:52:30 PM
My kid got assigned a project at school to research an Australian historical figure who was not notable enough to be in Brittanica. By the time he got to Wikipedia, the other kids in the grade 4 class had got to the article. I had to explain that no, I don't think a 19th century Australian aboriginal politician had laserbeams coming out of his eyes and fought Batman when he wanted to establish the site of the batcave in Melbourne.

Still it was sort of heartwarming to know that 9 year olds had already figured out how to crap up an obscure wikipedia article to mess up the homework of their classmates.
 
2012-02-15 05:53:22 PM
One researcher several years ago was lazy and writes down a sloppy half-assed sentence about a historical event, that half-assed sentence is repeated numerous times by other lazy researchers.


Years later a meticulous researcher comes along and provides evidence based on public record that the first lazy-assed researcher was incorrect.

Wikipedia editors swarm on meticulous researcher for espousing a "minority view," and somehow think they're making the case for Wikipedia?
 
2012-02-15 05:53:26 PM
I plan on printing this article for my young daughter.

When she hit's high school, I'm going to whip this out and make her read it as we walk on over to the library for more info.
 
2012-02-15 05:53:35 PM

Andulamb: Sorry, but I agree with Wikipedia here. If 99% of sources say X and 1% say Y, then the 1% shouldn't rewrite the article so that it says their version is true.


I sort of agree for most things. Then again if you have a verifiable source that is irrefutable though most remain as yet unaware of the change then why not? Like say someone discovers some letters or a suppressed confession on the topic this guys is flogging. Can we then still not change it?
 
2012-02-15 05:54:22 PM
Utter failure of understanding how Wikipedia works. You want something changed, you bring it up on the Talk page and start sucking up to the people who have designated themselves as the 'caretakers' of certain pages through the various 'groups'.


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.

Good. Wikipedia isn't a source. It's a collection of sources. If you're going to cite a 'fact' from a Wikipedia page, what you really ought to do is read the real source and cite that. And if it's not cited, or if the source is not credible? Well then it's a pretty good farking thing you checked it out!
 
Juc
2012-02-15 05:55:16 PM
My hobby is to subtly vandalize wikipedia pages so small inaccuracies become a commonly held misconception.
Especially for video games and movies.

//Did you know Jayne Cobb's mother was hoping to have a girl rather than a boy? true story, read it on wikipedia.
 
2012-02-15 05:57:26 PM

shoegaze99: SnakeLee: 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.


That's not trolling, it's being a shiatty, loathsome person. You'd be damaging his reputation and part of his livelihood ... and why? For the lulz?


Because he dares to point out wikipedia's flaws when its used as a tool of discrediting those who do not accept their ideals.
 
2012-02-15 05:57:46 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.


You shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source for the same reason you shouldn't cite encylopedia Britanica because it's an encyclopedia which is not a primary source. The reason teachers forbid high school students and undergraduates from using Wikipedia is because they seem incapable of understanding that. It has nothing to be with how "reputable" Wikipedia is.
 
2012-02-15 05:58:30 PM
It would be kinda funny if the Wikipedia article in question cited either of the two books. Don't feel like checking.
 
2012-02-15 05:59:24 PM
I can't imagine ever having enough faith in Wikipedia to cite it directly. Anyone who could bring themselves to do that should be thoroughly beaten with a stack of books.
 
2012-02-15 05:59:58 PM
wiki and its users and abusers are so lame there was even a guy on flickr who edited a wiki entry for the "afghan girl" photo to support his arugment on what lens was used.

petty mo fo's
 
2012-02-15 06:00:51 PM
My thesis relies on local information. So no wikipedia to help me on that one.
 
2012-02-15 06:00:59 PM

Silverstaff: ..


the article i got into a no-holds-barred fight over was medical but culturally charged. let's just say a member of ArbCom is a biased asshat and doesn't like anything being introduced to that article that might contradict his religious position on the subject.
 
2012-02-15 06:01:02 PM

UNC_Samurai: Wikipedia is extremely useful for what it's supposed to be - settling arguments that start in bars. The kinds of arguments that start, "No, that guy was in that TV series...."


t3.gstatic.com

Wikipedia ruined my life, too.
 
2012-02-15 06:01:09 PM
The Wikipedia article is about anarchists. Why am I not surprised?
 
2012-02-15 06:02:19 PM

Canton: 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.


I teach college. I just had a student use numerous cites that I knew were not in our library. All of them were culled, including page numbers, from Wikipedia.
 
2012-02-15 06:02:52 PM
I remember trying to edit the vampire page -- i changed something about sanguinarians, or psychic vampires ore something.

all i changed was "Some members of the vampire community live off of the psychic energy or humans" to
"Some members of the vampire community believe theylive off of the psychic energy or humans"

Because nobody ACTUALLY a vampire right? Well that shiat was undone within minutes and that was all it took for me to know wikipedia was completely insane.
 
2012-02-15 06:02:57 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.


One of the comments to the article said it best:

Wikipedia is an okay *start* to get you going on the generalities of the topic, however should not in any way be cites *itself* as a source, but, rather, aid you in getting to other resources for further research on your own.
 
2012-02-15 06:05:47 PM

Andulamb: Sorry, but I agree with Wikipedia here. If 99% of sources say X and 1% say Y, then the 1% shouldn't rewrite the article so that it says their version is true.

It sounded to me like the Wiki Overlords were telling the guy that it would be fine if he change the article to say that most sources state that no evidence was offered, but that some sources say this and that and the other. What would have been so farking hard about that?


So if 99 out of 100 type a fallacy that somehow makes it correct? Are you always this stupid?

And if you had read TFA you would have known that he had days of testimony, the records in the historical archive, along with other books saying it was wrong but since a ton of textbooks parroted the same line that makes them correct, that is moronic logic. Wiki trumpets their causes and is wrong on a lot of incidents but if it goes against their accepted idealism then you will get shouted down.

I am ready for libraries to come back to the forefront, where you can have all the facts and then make your own mind up.
 
2012-02-15 06:06:10 PM

doglover: What I don't understand is why people think wikipedia is somehow DIFFERENT from the previous. The only difference is the speed. There's plenty of books out that that have crap that's inaccurate or just plain wrong that served as sources to perpetuate more crap etc etc and then people think certain crap like is true because it's been in print forever.


Inherently Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia, and has the same sorts of flaws and limitations - most likely it is better and more accurate than any other encyclopedia - remember that while encyclopedia articles are written by foremost experts in a field and tend to be very accurate, most of the articles in them are written by people with only a general knowledge of the area in question, and plenty of them have significant biases, errors or ignore entire parts of the topic the author isn't interested in, or diverges from his personal biases and theories. The difference is in old style Encyclopedias you don't have the transparency of the history/comments on the article so they have been treated more authoritatively than they really deserve to be.

An Encyclopedia by design is for general interest - if you have a life or death decision to make, go to something more authoritative or specialized, but for general usage it will be accurate and informative enough. The idea there is some perfect fount of truth without flaws or errors, or even a close approximation to it, and any deviation from that perfection makes something useless is laughable, if not actually insane.
 
2012-02-15 06:06:18 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.


What about a paper that cites it as a primary source?

/just ribbing on your phrasing
 
2012-02-15 06:06:40 PM
oh god you morons... RTFA.
 
2012-02-15 06:06:46 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.


Did you RTFA this is not a book "expressing a new opinion " this is a book with research. There is a world of difference between opinions and actual facts. If Wiki mods cant't tell the difference they should confine themselves to commenting on Fark.
 
2012-02-15 06:07:14 PM

UNC_Samurai: Wikipedia is extremely useful for what it's supposed to be - settling arguments that start in bars. The kinds of arguments that start, "No, that guy was in that TV series...."


Isn't IMDB quicker/more accurate for that particular argument?
 
2012-02-15 06:09:14 PM
So Sarah Palin really is a coont?
 
2012-02-15 06:09:17 PM
One of the worst articles I've seen on wikipedia was a couple years ago when I made the mistake of looking up the new age parent delusion known as "indigo children". I just checked it again and fortunately I see it's been straightened out (for the moment) but the edits list and talk page go on and on. Apparently some idiotic believers keep editing it because they think their delusions are as valid as actual science. The first time I'd read it, the deluded, anti-science people were ahead on the edit battle.

Tahllunari
Something my wife does when researching her history papers is look up the topics on Wikipedia and then check out the books listed as sources for the article. This allows her to come up with her own opinions and give her a starting point for her works cited list. That in addition to our school library and British Online Archives, most of her documents are covered.

The difficulty is in knowing if you have sufficient coverage of legitimate, differing points of view. Some wikipedia articles are good about that and apparently some aren't.

Andulamb
Sorry, but I agree with Wikipedia here. If 99% of sources say X and 1% say Y, then the 1% shouldn't rewrite the article so that it says their version is true.

To you and the others defending Wikipedia... here's their huge, glaring fail:

TFA
Within 10 seconds I was informed that my citations to the primary documents were insufficient, as Wikipedia requires its contributors to rely on secondary sources

Secondary sources count and primary ones don't? In the author's example, the wiki entry flat out claimed that "no evidence" was presented linking the men on trial to the bombings. The author responded by linking to actual court transcripts that contained, lo and behold, evidence being presented at the trial that linked the accused to the bombings.

Now what moron came up with the idea that a primary source be trumped by a contradictory secondary source?
 
2012-02-15 06:09:34 PM
Tl;dr: Do you know who I am!?
 
2012-02-15 06:09:55 PM
That article has undergone some revisions in the last few days, and cites to the historian in question at least three times.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-15 06:10:09 PM
If George Orwell were to write 1984 today (call it 2021, maybe?), Winston Smith wouldn't be working in the Ministry of Truth. He'd be a Wikipedia editor.
 
2012-02-15 06:10:14 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: What? The NYT, WaPo, WSJ and Wiki may slants the facts because of an agenda?


I think the biggest difference is that wikipedia presents itself as the online encyclopedia were we have known for years that newspapers use their bias to their advantage.
 
2012-02-15 06:10:37 PM
How to Delete articles.

Link

Required reading.
 
2012-02-15 06:11:27 PM
The cult that is Wikipedia. This is why I don't donate money or lend my expertise reviewing and editing, Jimmy.
 
2012-02-15 06:12:05 PM

tcan: If Wiki mods cant't tell the difference


Well, I'm pretty sure most of his edits were reverted within minutes or even seconds. Doesn't exactly give one time to familiarize oneself with the sources being levied...

...not that I'm suggesting this is what Wiki-mods DO as standard proceedure, necessarily...
 
2012-02-15 06:12:50 PM

Trivia Jockey: That is a bunch of BS. Wikipedia needs a policy change if that's true.


Surprise! Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. As such it will always favor the established consensus over recent scholarship. This is why kids can't cite it in papers any more than Encyclopedia Britannica.

The best this guy can hope for is a line attributing a contrary opinion to him after the "no evidence" claim.
 
2012-02-15 06:13:27 PM

steamingpile: IamKaiserSoze!!!: What? The NYT, WaPo, WSJ and Wiki may slants the facts because of an agenda?

I think the biggest difference is that wikipedia presents itself as the online encyclopedia were we have known for years that newspapers use their bias to their advantage.


Sure, but all news media presents itself as objective. none is.
 
2012-02-15 06:14:01 PM

UNC_Samurai: Wikipedia is extremely useful for what it's supposed to be - settling arguments that start in bars. The kinds of arguments that start, "No, that guy was in that TV series...."


this
it's all
i use it for
 
2012-02-15 06:14:54 PM
 
2012-02-15 06:14:59 PM

FormlessOne: 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.

Came here for that, left contented. The guy has a minority opinion, and instead of presenting it as an alternate opinion, he deleted the majority opinion (read "vandalized") and replaced it with his minority opinion, instead of doing what you're supposed to do on Wikipedia and present it as an alternate viewpoint. His citations would've stood up to review, and the editors wouldn't have had to whack him for summarily replacing content. But, instead, he thought that if he was an asshole, over and over again, well, they would just have to relent, right?

Based on his article, he:
1. Replaced existing content with his own content.
2. When his changes were reversed, a Wikipedia editor asked him to read the rules, specifically regarding civility.
3. Immediately attempted to repeat those changes again.
4. When hi ...


So what your saying is that if the majority of people hold Christian beliefs then Wiki should show that as fact and all other knowledge as "minority opinions"
 
2012-02-15 06:15:36 PM

steamingpile: So if 99 out of 100 type a fallacy that somehow makes it correct? Are you always this stupid?


Wikipedia isn't about being "correct", it's about being "verifiable". It is verifiable that 99 out of 100 sources say something, and verifiable that 1 out of 100 say something else, but not presenting the 99 out of 100 even if they are wrong is outside the mission of Wikipedia.

"Most documentation on the trial cites a lack of evidence presented connecting blah to blah [List of citations], however the official court transcript shows x witnesses testifying on y subjects [Citation of primary source]"

is different than

"X witnesses testified on Y subjects"

The former would likely be fine, the author makes it sound like he did the latter and explained himself in the talk page, which isn't bueno.
 
2012-02-15 06:15:38 PM
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..."
 
2012-02-15 06:16:31 PM
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.
 
2012-02-15 06:17:59 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Surprise! Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. As such it will always favor the established consensus over recent scholarship. This is why kids can't cite it in papers any more than Encyclopedia Britannica.


but isn't the whole appeal of wikipedia that unlike a traditional encyclopedia, it isn't set in stone and is more able to evolve and stay relevant as new information and scholarship presents itself?
 
2012-02-15 06:18:43 PM

GranoblasticMan: UNC_Samurai: Wikipedia is extremely useful for what it's supposed to be - settling arguments that start in bars. The kinds of arguments that start, "No, that guy was in that TV series...."

Isn't IMDB quicker/more accurate for that particular argument?


Not just TV/Movies - basic questions about any topic that comes up when people are bullshiatting.
 
2012-02-15 06:18:55 PM
His user name is MesserKruse. He has also edited anonymously, as 129.1.105.18, according to his talk page; the whois checks out as BGSU, where TFA says he is a professor.
 
2012-02-15 06:19:01 PM

Mr Guy: 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.



Think of all the years he spent as a professor, helping students learn the answer by gathering the evidence for them and giving them the truth. It only took him nearly a dozen years on this single question.

While teaching it probably took a lot of effort to make sure the textbooks had been carefully redacted. But dammit if he isn't going to buy a 55gallon drum of white-out and fix all those textbooks so none of us ever have to see that old stuff he has corrected with his newly published book.

Him taking personal offense at 'Minority Opinion' and 'Undue Weight' is understandable, in a "get over it" kind of way. It should only take him five minutes to accept that all new published material is of a minority opinion. He uses the word, and he describes it right, but he doesn't get it.

Like those people who just can't deal with the word 'Theory' because it makes the claim sound like a guess. With a bit of perspective they could realize that it's not an insult to have your work called a 'theory'. Readers who care are going to know a theory from uncertainty. Having your fresh cut Theory put on the shelf to air out a little is certainly not an insult either.
 
2012-02-15 06:19:23 PM

patrick767: Secondary sources count and primary ones don't? In the author's example, the wiki entry flat out claimed that "no evidence" was presented linking the men on trial to the bombings. The author responded by linking to actual court transcripts that contained, lo and behold, evidence being presented at the trial that linked the accused to the bombings.

Now what moron came up with the idea that a primary source be trumped by a contradictory secondary source?


You know who decided primary sources don't count? The editors who had to argue with guys who supported all their claims about the life of Jesus with verses from the Bible, even if their reading of those verses didn't agree with any scholarly interpretation.

Once again: TERTIARY SOURCE. All encyclopedias are tertiary sources. None of them work off primary sources.
 
2012-02-15 06:20:21 PM
FTFA: One of the people who had assumed the role of keeper of this bit of history for Wikipedia quoted the Web site's "undue weight" policy, which states that "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." He then scolded me. "You should not delete information supported by the majority of sources to replace it with a minority view."

WTF? Is Winston Smith working at Wikipedia now?
 
HBK
2012-02-15 06:21:21 PM
I used to use wiki-how to explain how I would commit crimes without being caught. One if them stayed up for two weeks!
 
2012-02-15 06:21:39 PM

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..."


What the hell are you talking about?
 
2012-02-15 06:21:49 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.


But that's really going back on the entire theory of crowdsourcing. James Surowiecki wrote a neat book a few years ago, "The Wisdom of Crowds," exploring the hypothesis that a thousand idiots can reach a better conclusion than one expert. (Spoiler alert: the answer is "sometimes.") And that's really what Wiki is trying to do. It might be some grand experiment that doesn't work -- it might turn out that the experts really do know better. But that's going to be fatal to their whole model, which relies on millions of people around the world to contribute their work for free. If we go back to using the experts to write encyclopedias, then we're right back to the old business model of Encyclopedia Britannica -- presumably including the part where we have to pay for it.

On this issue, frankly, I think the editors got it right. I haven't got any clue whether the guy who wrote this article is an expert, as he seems to be, or a crackpot revisionist. He's probably an expert, but I don't know, and neither do the editors. If his views stand the test of time, then other historians' views will come around. As he said in this column, it's okay to say "most scholars believe X, but new research indicates Y," with citations for each. Readers will have the opportunity to test both X and Y. I don't think it would be appropriate for one person to come in and say "I've conclusively proven Y" and erase the record of X, even if the Y thesis has been peer-reviewed.

/cool story, bro: my brother has a Wiki page, and I can tell he wrote it himself (the user name contains his home address, so it was either him, his wife or an unknown stalker), but I won't call him out on it to his face
//he's written a couple of books and been on TV, so he's kinda notable
 
2012-02-15 06:22:30 PM

mikefinch: I remember trying to edit the vampire page -- i changed something about sanguinarians, or psychic vampires ore something.

all i changed was "Some members of the vampire community live off of the psychic energy or humans" to
"Some members of the vampire community believe theylive off of the psychic energy or humans"

Because nobody ACTUALLY a vampire right? Well that shiat was undone within minutes and that was all it took for me to know wikipedia was completely insane.


I found that article, and it's full of "they believe" and "they claim" now. The talk page is amusing, though, so is the random cosplayer picture at the top of the article (well, and the entire article itself).

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-15 06:22:42 PM

Degenerate Monkey: I can't imagine ever having enough faith in Wikipedia to cite it directly. Anyone who could bring themselves to do that should be thoroughly beaten with a stack of books.


www.patentlyo.com
 
2012-02-15 06:23:15 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: steamingpile: IamKaiserSoze!!!: What? The NYT, WaPo, WSJ and Wiki may slants the facts because of an agenda?

I think the biggest difference is that wikipedia presents itself as the online encyclopedia were we have known for years that newspapers use their bias to their advantage.

Sure, but all news media presents itself as objective. none is.


Ahhh but wikipedia is not a news media site, they present themselves as an encyclopedia, which are supposed to be just facts, not their opinions.

NkThrasher: The former would likely be fine, the author makes it sound like he did the latter and explained himself in the talk page, which isn't bueno.


Well it sounded to me like he pointed them to the trial transcripts that were extensive and then after finally looking at them added one word to the line, personally the testimony against them sounds pretty credible but it does sound like they had shiatty defense attorneys, either way wiki's line of "no evidence was presented against them" was a flat out lie and even adding "credible" before evidence is still wrong.

Wiki supports their viewpoints and is not in any way factual in matters of a political nature.
 
2012-02-15 06:23:44 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.


Meh, the most valuable thing I learned in my honors US History course is that every source has a bias whether they recognize it or not. We used two college textbooks throughout the year and focused on the different ways particular events were cover by each. Things from language selection to the parts of an event that were given the most attention would show the particular bias of the authors of each text. It's a big part of why I read the BBC and other foreign press coverage of US events, an outsiders bias is often illuminating of things you don't even realize you take for granted.
 
2012-02-15 06:24:01 PM

tlchwi02: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Surprise! Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. As such it will always favor the established consensus over recent scholarship. This is why kids can't cite it in papers any more than Encyclopedia Britannica.

but isn't the whole appeal of wikipedia that unlike a traditional encyclopedia, it isn't set in stone and is more able to evolve and stay relevant as new information and scholarship presents itself?


Yes, it is much more up to date than a traditional encyclopedia. That just means the balancing act between "up to date" and "backed by a long tradition of scholarship" has been adjusted, not thrown out completely.
 
2012-02-15 06:24:45 PM
Wikipedia is a great idea, and I've used it a thousand times for some quick facts, or to settle bets, and other things of that nature. I've also used it now and again as a jumping-off point for research on an unfamiliar subject, or to put some potential new leads in my head in mid-research - all while realizing that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source.

Wikipedia editors are, by and large, not experts in the subjects they edit, but are experts on how the wiki works. Wikipedia editors *cannot* judge the relative merits of claims. The site isn't there to present the 'truth',but rather a variety of viewpoints, or a consensus.

I'm sure they would have been fine with him sticking in two sentences, even referring to himself as a noted expert on the matter, expressing his point of view.

It's a shortcoming, sure, but any attempt to fix it destroys the wiki, in my opinion.

Wikipedia sure draws an awful lot of HERPDERP IT'S TERRIBLE, when it is what it is. Where people get into trouble (people, not the wiki itself!) is when they start to consider it a reliable source for proper research. Students need to be less lazy, teachers and professors need to teach better research skills, and everyone needs to chill out!
 
2012-02-15 06:24:57 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: You know who decided primary sources don't count?


Jimmy Wales.
 
2012-02-15 06:25:06 PM
Perhaps you should try Scholarpedia. It's much more reliable, but it covers way way less stuff.
 
2012-02-15 06:26:46 PM

Andulamb: Sorry, but I agree with Wikipedia here. If 99% of sources say X and 1% say Y, then the 1% shouldn't rewrite the article so that it says their version is true.


In that case, they need a page on Santorum.

/ Ooh, they already do!
 
2012-02-15 06:27:35 PM

RanDomino: 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.

Good. Wikipedia isn't a source. It's a collection of sources. If you're going to cite a 'fact' from a Wikipedia page, what you really ought to do is read the real source and cite that. And if it's not cited, or if the source is not credible? Well then it's a pretty good farking thing you checked it out!


Wikipedia has its place, even in academia. But it won't support a load-bearing argument. The distinction is subtle, but there is maneuvering room to be found there.

I've cited Wikipedia in a college paper (a philosophy piece) as recently as a few years ago. Successfully. I'd used the term Duality and Yin Yang as an analogy to add nuance to the point I was actually making. My argument did not hinge on Taoism, it just clarified the nuances in my argument in a compact way. But I didn't want to derail my piece with what would be a counter-productively long digression into eastern philosophy, but I also didn't want to leave my jargon undefined for my western audience (of one).

So I cited non-critical but pithy flavor text from the Wikipedia article on Taoism that illuminated my nuance, then used the footnote as a way to reach a basic summary of Taoism, if that summary was needed by my reader.

What I didn't do was try to hang an argument on that cite.
 
2012-02-15 06:29:22 PM
This conversation is incredibly stupid. Everyone knows what wikipedia is and how it should be used. Anyone who uses it incorrectly is a moron. If wikipedia wasnt available they would be doing crappy research with other resources.
 
2012-02-15 06:29:36 PM

steamingpile: Well it sounded to me like he pointed them to the trial transcripts that were extensive and then after finally looking at them added one word to the line, personally the testimony against them sounds pretty credible but it does sound like they had shiatty defense attorneys, either way wiki's line of "no evidence was presented against them" was a flat out lie and even adding "credible" before evidence is still wrong.


From TFA:

So I removed the line about there being "no evidence" and provided a full explanation in Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes editing log. Within minutes my changes were reversed. The explanation: "You must provide reliable sources for your assertions to make changes along these lines to the article."

He removed information sourced from many locations in favor of information sourced from one. Modifying it to identify that multiple sources make a certain claim about the evidence at the trial in one direction, but the primary source indicates otherwise is different than removing information about what multiple sources say.

In order to remove the evidence claim entirely it would have to be a situation where the evidence claim was as a result of a minority of sources and that the sources that opposed it were of significantly higher value than the minority.


Note: I think his edits were likely the truth of the matter, but he wasn't playing Wikipedia's game by Wikipedia's rules.
 
2012-02-15 06:29:49 PM
Dramatic re-enactment of the author's heroic struggle for truth and accuracy:

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-02-15 06:30:31 PM
During the past decade I served as a freelance fact-checker for a major U.S. encyclopedia/reference publishing company for about four years. I was given encyc. and reference book entries and other works and was required to verify every factoid in the documents using at least three independent and reliable sources. Even though I'd been a reference librarian for 20 years this was often an onerous task. If I couldn't find enough sources to verify a particular "fact" or if there appeared to be major controversies, I alerted the editors and the authors works were changed to reflect that. Sometimes it was a simple word change from "all" to "some", for instance, but often it was necessary to drop a phrase, sentence or paragraph because it could not be confirmed with the requisite number of sources.

I was forbidden to use Wikipedia as a primary source in my research, although it was fair game to use the sources cited in Wiki entries as leads to reputable sources. Subby's article is an excellent explanation of why Wiki should be used with extreme caution.

On a lighter note, a friend of mine dared her husband -- a professor at a midwestern college -- to assign his classes a data-intensive 2-page paper on the day that Wiki closed down to protest SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately he couldn't/wouldn't fit that in to that week's classes. I giggle at the thought of how some students would panic without access to Wiki in that case.
 
2012-02-15 06:32:35 PM

MooseUpNorth: But it won't support a load-bearing argument.


In engineering, a load-bearing structure support other things in the structure.

I'm not sure what the hell a "load-bearing argument" is, in that sense. Does it support itself? Or is it supported by other arguments that are in turn supported by other things (maybe other arguments)?

Or is it just that most of what supports the argument is, well, a load?
 
2012-02-15 06:33:28 PM

Mr Guy: 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.


Except the part where he referred to publicly available first-generation sources. AS opposed to "credible opinions".
 
2012-02-15 06:35:04 PM
Sounds like this dude is in danger of giving birth to a pearl with all the vagina clenching he's doing over this.

Friggen' eggheads, man.
 
2012-02-15 06:35:14 PM
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.
 
2012-02-15 06:35:58 PM

here to help: Sounds like this dude is in danger of giving birth to a pearl with all the vagina clenching he's doing over this.

Friggen' eggheads, man.


I know, right? Who cares about the truth? Let's go bang some chicks and drink, bro!
 
2012-02-15 06:38:04 PM
On this very website I once stated, in the course of one of those endless "Nuh UH! YOU!" sort of arguments that emerge here - when the other party cited a Wikipedia article that was, at best, sketchy - that I didn't hold much stock in a lot of the contributions to that site. He dismissed me as an illiterate oaf who, obviously, must be some sort of drooling narcissist to dare to not kowtow to the infallibility of Wikipedia. I would like to, at this juncture, rest my case. Page views, Google ads, contributions and ad revenue make the net go around. The new Library of Alexandria has a whorehouse in the rear.
 
2012-02-15 06:38:57 PM
Still, I'm never going to give Wikipedia money no matter how hard they beg, and I will continue to send pizzas with extra cheese to their house.
 
2012-02-15 06:39:12 PM

narkor: My kid got assigned a project at school to research an Australian historical figure who was not notable enough to be in Brittanica. By the time he got to Wikipedia, the other kids in the grade 4 class had got to the article. I had to explain that no, I don't think a 19th century Australian aboriginal politician had laserbeams coming out of his eyes and fought Batman when he wanted to establish the site of the batcave in Melbourne.

Still it was sort of heartwarming to know that 9 year olds had already figured out how to crap up an obscure wikipedia article to mess up the homework of their classmates.


If you had to explain that those facts were false to your kid, that's not a very bright kid.



/Friend once made up nicknames for all the presidents and edited wiki to include them. Got banned.
//Millard "Ass That Won't Quit" Filmore
 
2012-02-15 06:39:39 PM

DrunkWithImpotence: You don't just get to redact the people you believe are wrong without proving it.

Except the part where he referred to publicly available first-generation sources. AS opposed to "credible opinions".


Yeah, the main issue here is that the author of the article DID provide 1st person sources and analysis, and the Wikipedia editors still wouldn't budge.

But this is a known issue with Wikipedia and is why you can't rely on it on its own to be the end-all of knowledge on a topic.

Some topics are better than others, though. If you're looking up some mathematical formula, for example, you're probably pretty safe.
 
2012-02-15 06:40:45 PM

bunner: The new Library of Alexandria has a whorehouse in the rear.


To be fair, the Library of Alexandria most likely had a whorehouse across the street.
 
2012-02-15 06:40:53 PM

SkunkWerks: MooseUpNorth: But it won't support a load-bearing argument.

In engineering, a load-bearing structure support other things in the structure.

I'm not sure what the hell a "load-bearing argument" is, in that sense.


A load bearing argument is a central support to the thesis of the paper.

If my thesis was "I like pie", then a load-bearing argument would be the battery of peer-reviewed studies each showing that approximately 98% of me likes pie. (+-4%,19/20 for most polls, except Rasmussen, which polls 4% lower in Republican districts.) That everybody else statistically likes pie too (except New Hampshire according to Pew, but that's disputed) would be a supportive argument, but not a load bearing one.
 
2012-02-15 06:42:07 PM

MtLebanonBalogna: On a lighter note, a friend of mine dared her husband -- a professor at a midwestern college -- to assign his classes a data-intensive 2-page paper on the day that Wiki closed down to protest SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately he couldn't/wouldn't fit that in to that week's classes. I giggle at the thought of how some students would panic without access to Wiki in that case.


I giggle at the thought that people believe there was a whole lot of information about SOPA/PIPA (you know, those laws dealing with regulating the internet?)- other than the text of the laws themselves- that wasn't mostly on the internet in the first place.

I giggle at the thought that some people apparently think that the RIAA/MPAA wanted the full ramifications of SOPA/PIPA to be understood by the general public (as well as most of Congress) before it went to a general vote.

I giggle at the thought that I keep writing the phrase "I giggle at the thought" when what I really want to say is that that little litmus test of yours was pretty poorly devised.

It's something like laughing at a bunch of students trying to do research on the inner workings of the Library of Congress when it's closed for a day because, a-hyuk, they can't find uther creddable sorses on the subject, a-hyuk!
 
2012-02-15 06:43:37 PM
I wrote two "research" papers as an undergrad using only Wikipedia. Solid B on both. One prof was old. The other was Japanese, if I recall, and cited Wikipedia on his slides.
 
2012-02-15 06:43:51 PM

narkor: My kid got assigned a project at school to research an Australian historical figure who was not notable enough to be in Brittanica. By the time he got to Wikipedia, the other kids in the grade 4 class had got to the article. I had to explain that no, I don't think a 19th century Australian aboriginal politician had laserbeams coming out of his eyes and fought Batman when he wanted to establish the site of the batcave in Melbourne.

Still it was sort of heartwarming to know that 9 year olds had already figured out how to crap up an obscure wikipedia article to mess up the homework of their classmates.


Those aren't kids. Those are future law students.

/we're sub-human
 
2012-02-15 06:43:57 PM

Knara: But this is a known issue with Wikipedia and is why you can't rely on it on its own to be the end-all of knowledge on a topic.


It isn't an issue with Wikipedia, it's an issue with people not understanding what Wikipedia is. Expectation is the problem.
 
2012-02-15 06:45:11 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Canton: 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.

I teach college. I just had a student use numerous cites that I knew were not in our library. All of them were culled, including page numbers, from Wikipedia.


That's disheartening, but not shocking. I go to college, and the fact that professors still have to remind students that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source is just sad. Encyclopedias can be wonderfully useful if you know to use them as references, not sources. Clearly, not everybody learned that.

/Went to a public school and learned things!
//Shocking?
 
2012-02-15 06:46:06 PM

NkThrasher: Knara: But this is a known issue with Wikipedia and is why you can't rely on it on its own to be the end-all of knowledge on a topic.

It isn't an issue with Wikipedia, it's an issue with people not understanding what Wikipedia is. Expectation is the problem.


No, it is definitely a problem with Wikipedia, as well.

It's also an intractable problem because Wikipedia is edited by humans who have nothing better to do with their lives.
 
2012-02-15 06:46:29 PM

MooseUpNorth: A load bearing argument is a central support to the thesis of the paper.


Still doesn't ring right to me. Things that support arguments (a thesis is essentially the central argument of a paper) should be, well, sources, not other arguments (which in turn need things to cite to hold them up)... unless you're plying the extremely theoretical, I suppose.

In which case I applaud you if you can pull it off.
 
2012-02-15 06:46:55 PM

robodog: Meh, the most valuable thing I learned in my honors US History course is that every source has a bias whether they recognize it or not.


This. It's one of the reasons I love alternate history books, it's fun to actually think about something you're absolutely positive about in a completely backwards way. A great example is James Loewen, the Lies My Teacher Told Me guy. I'm glad he's talking about alternate views, even if his own biases are crystal clear by the time you finish that book. (Lies Across America only bolsters them, fwiw.)
 
2012-02-15 06:46:58 PM
Strangely un-CSB time:

Doktor Space Banana, who is thoroughly insomniac and smokes massive amounts of weed (a farker, after all) occasionally edits wiki-articles with an eye towards better writing, verifiability, etc. Late last night - or maybe it was early this morning, who knows - I was reading and then decided to edit the article on Rickie Lee Jones. Don't ask; somehow 'Pirates' ended up on the turntable yesterday. It happens ...

Anyway, this RLJ article was not just a mess of contradictory and repetitive info, it looked like it was written by Jones' record company or someone. It wasn't an article: It was an argument for sainthood. Among the more interesting claims: that Jones' clothing-style was everywhere, copied by everyone; that the success of her pre-MTV "video" was directly responsible for the creation of MTV, that Jones herself was responsible for the death of disco. So I went to the talk page, this is what we do, right? Talk first, edit later, the world will not end -probably - if someone is misled by a glowing hagiography of Rickie Lee Jones in the meantime.

And lo, there on the talk page was Rickie Lee Jones, complaining that all her edits to the article were being reverted. As in this classic comment: "hello I am rickie lee jones. can you tell me how to make it clear when I am writing about events, I mean, that it is ME, and have a 'signiture' or 'citation' or whatever? ? Sometimes my facts get omitted, and other peoples 'facts' remain."

Beauty, no? I mean, okay, neither Jones nor anyone else should be allowed to write clearly propagandistic b.s. unchallenged. But the wiki-rules seem to make no allowance for actual expertise. And Heaven help you if you fall afoul of politically-motivated wiki-fiends (there are many of these latter).

What it really boils down to is this: In the world, the real world, the world not hemmed by consensus and verifiability, my ignorance is not just as good as your hard-researched facts. No matter how many of me there may, in fact, be. If 99% of editors believe the sky is green rather than blue, as referenced above, then 99% of editors are shiat-farking retards and the article should reflect this.


/Hmm.
//Did I just become the 1% by accident?)
 
2012-02-15 06:47:56 PM

NkThrasher: it's an issue with people not understanding what Wikipedia is


Jimmy Wales.
 
2012-02-15 06:48:01 PM
I remember hearing about a similar story on NPR a few years back. An author/college professor decided to look up the wiki entries on himself and a few of his books.

He tried to correct a few minor things (publishing date, his high school, etc) and kept having his edits changed by a nazi admin who would nit pick any minor formatting errors or what he considered poor citations.
 
2012-02-15 06:48:01 PM

Knara: No, it is definitely a problem with Wikipedia, as well.


Why is it a problem with Wikipedia (apart from maybe not shouting on the rooftops what it is and isn't every time you load an article, although they definitely don't hide anything) that people don't understand what it is and isn't?
 
2012-02-15 06:48:31 PM
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that'
s got it wrong.

This was the gist of the notice. It said "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."

This has led to some interesting consequences. For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists"), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf."
 
2012-02-15 06:49:54 PM
Apparently wikipedia gave in. Section stated in the article that he modified and the wiki editors un-modified, no longer says
"The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer credible evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing

But it now reads:

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.[33] Albert Parsons' brother claimed there was evidence linking the Pinkertons to the bomb
 
2012-02-15 06:50:58 PM
I gave up after I noticed Olivia Newton-John's age was incorrect on her wiki page due to the wiki coding on dates being wrong.

It was immediately changed back.
 
2012-02-15 06:56:41 PM
With wikipedia it seems generic technical stuff (ie how a 4 stroke engine works) is mostly accurate but anything with any possibility of political bent gets filled with steaming bullshiat really quickly.
 
2012-02-15 06:58:13 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.

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.


I use to as a 'whatever happened to..' A random assortment of old tv stars, musicians, wrestlers (save your search as they are all dead) and videogames. Nothing real.
 
2012-02-15 07:02:22 PM

SkunkWerks: MtLebanonBalogna: On a lighter note, a friend of mine dared her husband -- a professor at a midwestern college -- to assign his classes a data-intensive 2-page paper on the day that Wiki closed down to protest SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately he couldn't/wouldn't fit that in to that week's classes. I giggle at the thought of how some students would panic without access to Wiki in that case.

I giggle at the thought that people believe there was a whole lot of information about SOPA/PIPA (you know, those laws dealing with regulating the internet?)- other than the text of the laws themselves- that wasn't mostly on the internet in the first place.

I giggle at the thought that some people apparently think that the RIAA/MPAA wanted the full ramifications of SOPA/PIPA to be understood by the general public (as well as most of Congress) before it went to a general vote.

I giggle at the thought that I keep writing the phrase "I giggle at the thought" when what I really want to say is that that little litmus test of yours was pretty poorly devised.

It's something like laughing at a bunch of students trying to do research on the inner workings of the Library of Congress when it's closed for a day because, a-hyuk, they can't find uther creddable sorses on the subject, a-hyuk!


You inferred that the subject of the assigned paper would have been SOPA/PIPA; no, the subject would have been something concerning social psychology. Sorry I didn't go into detail.

/giggle
 
2012-02-15 07:02:59 PM
Wait, so you're telling me that a CIA psy-op is responsible for disseminating misinformation about a politicized event, while stifling legitimate information?

ThisIsAnOutrage.jpg
 
2012-02-15 07:05:11 PM

NkThrasher: Why is it a problem with Wikipedia (apart from maybe not shouting on the rooftops what it is and isn't every time you load an article, although they definitely don't hide anything) that people don't understand what it is and isn't?


Because Wikipedia should strive to be better, not be satisfied with being just a mindless conglomeration.
 
2012-02-15 07:05:31 PM

sprawl15: I'd only trust Wikipedia to be accurate when talking about weeaboo shiat.


weeabo:
A person who's totally obsessed with Japanese culture; Wapanese; Wanna be Japanese.

i didn't know this about you. we have to talk.
 
2012-02-15 07:05:54 PM

SkunkWerks: MooseUpNorth: A load bearing argument is a central support to the thesis of the paper.

Still doesn't ring right to me. Things that support arguments (a thesis is essentially the central argument of a paper) should be, well, sources, not other arguments (which in turn need things to cite to hold them up)... unless you're plying the extremely theoretical, I suppose.


Think of the five paragraph essay format that middle school kids practice with. Paragraph one states the thesis. Paragraphs two, three and four are the load bearing arguments that support the thesis. Paragraph five is the conclusion.

In which case I applaud you if you can pull it off.

I won't say it wasn't risky. *chuckle* But I used the cite to provide context and clarity to my analogy. The argument itself wasn't load-bearing either. It was basically a free-standing interpretation. An opinion, really.

If you're at all interested, I likened "the sciences" as the understanding of the physical universe, the search without, the yang. And "the humanities" as the understanding of our mind-space, the search within, the yin. The analogy was flavorful, but not in any way load-bearing.
 
2012-02-15 07:06:04 PM
When the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia first came out, everyone thought it would end up being useless due to vandalism. Turns out it became useless because of those whose job it is to prevent vandalism.
 
2012-02-15 07:08:23 PM
I like to read about lots of different things and I'm bored most of the time at work. Wikipedia is a great time killer. The company web filter doesn't block it and at a glance it doesn't look suspicious to anyone walking by. I wouldn't trust it for serious research but as a source of reading material covering all topics it's great stuff.

/fark was recently blocked at work
//that's what smartphones are for apparently
 
2012-02-15 07:09:00 PM

SkunkWerks: MtLebanonBalogna: On a lighter note, a friend of mine dared her husband -- a professor at a midwestern college -- to assign his classes a data-intensive 2-page paper on the day that Wiki closed down to protest SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately he couldn't/wouldn't fit that in to that week's classes. I giggle at the thought of how some students would panic without access to Wiki in that case.

I giggle at the thought that people believe there was a whole lot of information about SOPA/PIPA (you know, those laws dealing with regulating the internet?)- other than the text of the laws themselves- that wasn't mostly on the internet in the first place.

I giggle at the thought that some people apparently think that the RIAA/MPAA wanted the full ramifications of SOPA/PIPA to be understood by the general public (as well as most of Congress) before it went to a general vote.

I giggle at the thought that I keep writing the phrase "I giggle at the thought" when what I really want to say is that that little litmus test of yours was pretty poorly devised.

It's something like laughing at a bunch of students trying to do research on the inner workings of the Library of Congress when it's closed for a day because, a-hyuk, they can't find uther creddable sorses on the subject, a-hyuk!


Uh, where'd you get that the paper was supposed to be on SOPA/PIPA?
 
2012-02-15 07:10:06 PM

Knara: Because Wikipedia should strive to be better, not be satisfied with being just a mindless conglomeration.


Better by what measure?

You seem to have the same misplaced expectation that is the actual problem. Wikipedia isn't there to be a factual reference for the "truth", it is there to be a collection of sourced information on a subject, whether or not it represents the 'truth' is irrelevant as long as it accurately represents the information that is available and able to be sourced.

By that measure, it is rather good in a general sense.
 
2012-02-15 07:13:17 PM
Guy sounds like an insufferable douche. Obviously being Mr Big "Professor" he can't explain his actions to a bunch of random internet anons (who likely could be professors as well) that have been editing a site for years, while he is on hist first and second day.

So you're a revisionist historian, and on the first day your book is published challenging the status quo of opinion you expect an encyclopedia's editors to just bend over backwards to your massive credentials.

Go make a blog post and whine about it! Oh wait...
 
2012-02-15 07:16:03 PM

God's Bathroom Floor: here to help: Sounds like this dude is in danger of giving birth to a pearl with all the vagina clenching he's doing over this.

Friggen' eggheads, man.

I know, right? Who cares about the truth? Let's go bang some chicks and drink, bro!


As long as we can stop and TP the nerd dorm on the way.

[ogre.jpg]
 
2012-02-15 07:16:23 PM

SnakeLee: 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)


Why?
 
2012-02-15 07:27:04 PM
While from the sounds of it, the editors could be much less judgemental and obnoxious, in general, I agree with their assertion.

While to me, this author definitely sounds like he is an expert in the field, Wikipedia should not be the people who determine that he is in fact an expert. What would possibly give them the credentials to do so for every single field? Wikipedia should go with the most conventional wisdom.

Hopefully this guy's research will in fact change conventional wisdom (assuming his research is as credible as it seems).

I do think there should be a defined way of stating controversy and it should allow a lot more leeway than the main part of the article.

In the end, as so many others have said, people should mostly remember that Wikipedia is a starting place for research, not a source in and of itself.
 
2012-02-15 07:27:30 PM
This seems to be just a policy that is implemented to keep the crazies away somewhat. No system can be perfect so the best we can do is harm-reduction of some type, imho. I like wikipedia a lot but there I do take it with a grain of salt. That said, it is as accurate as traditional sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Plus, lulz are to be had when douches like Newt get busted trying to modify their entries.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
 
2012-02-15 07:28:42 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.


I wonder how this happens, I've made about 3 wikipedia edits, none have been changed, certainly not in seconds. My last one is quickly approaching a month with no further edits.

But then, I guess I'm not making controversial changes. As for the editors - I think there's a good chance that it's ONE editor who happens to have some knowledge of the subject, if the older concept of the 'truth'.

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.


I'd argue that it's a very good encyclopedia, but even citing from one's bound paper tomes is for a elementary school student, not a college student. It's great for basic knowledge and research about a topic, but not as a direct source. I'll use it when debating electric cars on the internet, not when writing a paper to present to a class, much less do actual research.
 
2012-02-15 07:29:47 PM
So it was explained to him twice that Wikipedia uses majority consensus yet he continued to attempt to edit the article?

"Tempted to win simply through sheer tenacity, I edited the page again"

ChuDogg: Guy sounds like an insufferable douche.


A tad strong, but I agree. Maybe we should create a Wikipedia page for him?
 
2012-02-15 07:31:24 PM

pseydtonne: //An encyclopedia has people that take responsibility for incorrect information.


Does anyone actually check encyclopedias? I know it's kind of assumed, but does it actually happen?
 
2012-02-15 07:32:11 PM
I haven't touched a real encyclopedia since the 8th grade.
 
2012-02-15 07:32:19 PM

NkThrasher: Author doesn't understand how Wikipedia works...


More like "Author sees where Wikipedia's editors end up defending the publication of things that are patently false, talks about how their policies and procedures are therefore broken, and the usual suspects chime in to defend the indefensible."

News at 11.
 
2012-02-15 07:34:15 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.


I have run into this more than a few times that I've just given up trying. The last was on a subject that I'd just had a peer-reviewed publication with. Mostly I added to the article and I also deleted one line that had suddenly become statistically and logically impossible with the new data available. Well not only were all of my changes reverted, my 5 new references added to "further reading" were deleted too. And it was done within minutes. Not even enough time to read if the new references and citations were correct.

Why would people want to contribute if some admin has it on e-mail alert that one of "their" articles was edited (BTW I hope it's an e-mail alert, otherwise that guy really has no life), and you have to have a discussion about each point you want to change. I just don't have the time for that crap.
 
2012-02-15 07:34:29 PM
People still go to wikipedia?
 
2012-02-15 07:36:26 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.


Came in here to say this. You come up with a theory that contravenes what is in the text books you teach from and expect the world to instantly fall at your feet? It's great that you can site all of your evidence, but you're basically asking them to change a point in their article from A to B based on one source, which is you (your references to your evidence are sources supporting your claim not supporting your change), while they have a dozen different sources claiming the point as A?

My god, man, get over yourself. Can't decide if I should include attentionwhore.jpg or welcometofarkcryingguy.jpg.

/I'll just settle for slashies
 
2012-02-15 07:39:19 PM

Yukon Callmeal: NkThrasher: Author doesn't understand how Wikipedia works...

More like "Author sees where Wikipedia's editors end up defending the publication of things that are patently false, talks about how their policies and procedures are therefore broken, and the usual suspects chime in to defend the indefensible."

News at 11.


they are probably wikipedia editors.
 
2012-02-15 07:40:16 PM
...and that is why, staying online for days on end, without regard for sleep, food, or personal hygeine, reading TvTropes.

/crack on the Net
 
2012-02-15 07:40:56 PM

NkThrasher: In order to remove the evidence claim entirely it would have to be a situation where the evidence claim was as a result of a minority of sources and that the sources that opposed it were of significantly higher value than the minority.


Yes but you didnt read down to the next paragraph where it states:

That was curious, as I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress. I also noted one of my own peer-reviewed articles

The actual transcript from the trial should be all the proof that is needed.

Wiki is wrong on this.
 
2012-02-15 07:44:14 PM
Over 50% of people believe Obama is a communist. Therefor, we must edit his page in kind, and label him as a member of the Communist Party.

Right? I mean, that's basically what many of you are implying.
 
2012-02-15 07:44:26 PM

NkThrasher: Knara: Because Wikipedia should strive to be better, not be satisfied with being just a mindless conglomeration.

Better by what measure?

You seem to have the same misplaced expectation that is the actual problem. Wikipedia isn't there to be a factual reference for the "truth", it is there to be a collection of sourced information on a subject, whether or not it represents the 'truth' is irrelevant as long as it accurately represents the information that is available and able to be sourced.

By that measure, it is rather good in a general sense.


Yes, because what the world needs is one centralized place where you can get all your factual and non-factual information through one interface.

We already have that, it's called "The Internet"

Wikipedia should strive to be better.
 
2012-02-15 07:45:11 PM

steamingpile: The actual transcript from the trial should be all the proof that is needed. Wiki is wrong on this.


He went about it all wrong though. He shouldn't have replaced the text but appended the new information to the next. Something along the lines of, "However, the court transcript (ref) shows that evidence was indeed given...". Just deleting the consensus and replacing it with his research was wrong as well. So was continually re-editing it after he was informed of his mistake.
 
2012-02-15 07:48:32 PM
fayinc.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-15 07:48:32 PM

God's Bathroom Floor: here to help: Sounds like this dude is in danger of giving birth to a pearl with all the vagina clenching he's doing over this.

Friggen' eggheads, man.

I know, right? Who cares about the truth? Let's go bang some chicks and drink, bro!


cf1.imgobject.com
 
2012-02-15 07:51:39 PM

Mouser: Ministry


Came for the obvious Orwell / Ministry of Truth reference. Kinda surprised it took this long.
 
2012-02-15 07:51:58 PM
I tried to correct a blatant error contained in an article about a park that is located about a half mile from where I live. The correction that I made could be verified by simply looking at the picture on the wiki page about the park. The correction was changed back by some self important wiki editor. Attempts to cite sources including the picture just the right of article was not enough to convince the page's editor that the correction was just and proper.

I think many of the page editors are people who created a large amount of the content and take personal offense when someone corrects their errors. They would rather the page contain well known errors than to admit that they are simply wrong.
 
2012-02-15 07:54:12 PM
Incidentally, I was being facetious, but only slightly...
 
2012-02-15 07:57:42 PM

This sort of thing has been going on for a while. Hit the picture below for my favorite story (and the reason why I chose that IP address)

i158.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-15 07:59:36 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.


What you said is so wrong that it clearly shows you didn't understand the article.

First he isn't expressing opinion (look at his edits if you don't believe me), he was citing primary sources for facts.

Also it takes seconds to verify that the book being cited is written by a professor, and newly published (2011) by Palgrave Macmillan, and academic publisher. This should hold a lot of weight in inputting facts. The problem isn't that they aren't letting him edit it, they problem is they aren't letting him exchange factual for non-factual/misleading information. I can see how their policy might hold true for opinion or as we usually call it "truth," but that's not what this is.
 
2012-02-15 08:04:35 PM
The miracle of Wikipedia is that this shiat doesn't happen much more often.
 
2012-02-15 08:06:07 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: pseydtonne: //An encyclopedia has people that take responsibility for incorrect information.

Does anyone actually check encyclopedias? I know it's kind of assumed, but does it actually happen?


Yes, there are people who do. That's why entries on specific items will often change revision to revision. Heck, a study showed that Wikipedia, deliberately defaced pages and all, had fewer mistakes on average than traditional printed encyclopedias.

The trick is that while unpaid, volunteer, and often anonymous, there are millions of potential authors, and somebody generally stands up. While with traditional encyclopedias the author might be professional, but not a 'world expert' on the subject, and has limited time and budget to get the section out.

Wikipedia has some problems, but that's hardly unknown - the most recent edit I did was to a wind power page that had the state producing about 20 times the electricity per year as it theoretically could if 100% of it's wind turbines operated at 100% of capacity for a year. I went to check the cite, assuming typo, dead link.

So I looked up the current references( ~3 years newer), put the updated cite links and figures in. I deleted a couple statements that weren't in the new cites, added a couple that were. Nobody's said a peep.
 
2012-02-15 08:06:08 PM

pedobearapproved: Also it takes seconds to verify that the book being cited is written by a professor, and newly published (2011) by Palgrave Macmillan, and academic publisher. This should hold a lot of weight in inputting facts. The problem isn't that they aren't letting him edit it, they problem is they aren't letting him exchange factual for non-factual/misleading information. I can see how their policy might hold true for opinion or as we usually call it "truth," but that's not what this is.


He jumped the gun. The next step is to convince his peers that he's right. When there's a significant degree of consensus (or even building consensus) among experts in his field, then (and only then) is it appropriate to update the encyclopedic entries with the new consensus (or the controversy.)
 
2012-02-15 08:10:27 PM
I go to wikipedia for the talk pages.

/popcorn anyone?
 
2012-02-15 08:11:30 PM
The main issue is with WikiPedia's Reliable Sources (new window) guidelines :

+"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible...Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves..."

This puts legitimate scholars and subject matter experts like Messer-Kruse on the outside, and secondary source hunters, "Wikipedians" in control of the articles.

In the talk page (new window) of the article, one commenter writes: "When Einstein proved in an experiment his theory was right, the scientific community reversed their positions even though he was in numerical inferiority. Why should Wikipedia be based on Colbert's standard of truthiness instead?"

Mr. Colbert, please get Jimmy Wales back on your show to explain how this can happen!
 
2012-02-15 08:13:14 PM

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


That goes against the premise of Wikipedia: that the sum of the knowledge of a million idiots is greater than the knowledge of a small number of experts.

Clearly that premise is false in many cases, and that should be borne in mind when reading the articles. They often give a good overview (especially when the topic has no political value), but Wikipedia is often slanted / misleading / false. Basically it reflects the consensus view of the subset of people who have nothing better to do than obsess over Wikipedia.

If you wants real facts, then go to primary historical documents, scientific papers, etc. or other peer-reviewed work (as opposed to idiot-reviewed work).
 
2012-02-15 08:20:29 PM
Oh dear, I'm not sure where to start.

Beginning at the well documented thesis that if you show something to 10 people, they'll largely not agree with each other on what they saw, will embellish the results or delete inconvenient bits to suit their preconceived notions. Just try the 'whisper game' for an easy proof to the fact that most people cant reliably repeat what they just saw or heard.

Then you augment this incompetence with people who have agendas and want people to think a particular way about something. And of course, the winners/survivors write their own version that suits them, or eliminates things that dont. Read some random history books about world war II or some other significant event, only get the original texts from other countries. I think you'll find significant differences.

Next you have the persistent alteration of materials over time as people mess with it.

So realistically, the problem here isnt wikipedia. Its that some people think that anything, even something written by a collection of eyewitnesses or well researched experts, might actually be somewhat close to what happened.

So what was written on wikipedia about this event is probably wrong. So is the account that the editor came to realize. The truth is probably some completely different thing.
 
2012-02-15 08:22:27 PM

MooseUpNorth: pedobearapproved: Also it takes seconds to verify that the book being cited is written by a professor, and newly published (2011) by Palgrave Macmillan, and academic publisher. This should hold a lot of weight in inputting facts. The problem isn't that they aren't letting him edit it, they problem is they aren't letting him exchange factual for non-factual/misleading information. I can see how their policy might hold true for opinion or as we usually call it "truth," but that's not what this is.

He jumped the gun. The next step is to convince his peers that he's right. When there's a significant degree of consensus (or even building consensus) among experts in his field, then (and only then) is it appropriate to update the encyclopedic entries with the new consensus (or the controversy.)


Exactly. When people go to wiki they are usually looking for commonly accepted truths. Even if buddy tightvag in the article is right someone might quote him and then get their ass handed to them by someone who is familiar with the accepted knowledge. What's the quoter gonna do? Tell them "BUT I READZ IT ON THE WIKIPEDIAZ!!1" That don't cut it in the real world. This guy wanted to REPLACE the commonly accepted truth as opposed to CHALLENGE it and open the discussion. Then if his version of events become accepted as truth the old version becomes it's own piece of history by way of "This what dumbasses in the past thought."

I think this guy just wants to show the world how smart he is and draw attention to his books with this little temper tantrum.

and really... it's a rather obscure topic to dedicate your life to.

Friggen' eggheads...
 
2012-02-15 08:23:16 PM

God's Bathroom Floor: Well this page takes on new layers of irony, then.


is your user id in reference to that Atmosphere song?
 
2012-02-15 08:23:42 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.


crow202.org
 
2012-02-15 08:24:23 PM

FormlessOne: That's the gist of it. They're not telling him he can't write a minority opinion - they're telling him he can't replace the majority opinion with his own. He doesn't like that, because he's right, after all, and so he's throwing a fit.


You missed the part where the sources he cites are direct - "including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" - and thus more credible than other cited sources to the contrary. Wikipedia chose to ignore the validity of his sources and go with "majority rules" rather than hard facts.
 
2012-02-15 08:25:15 PM
I'm guessing most of this drama is in articles about things like music bands, politicians, and video game systems. I've never seen any kind of drama or stuff in the animal, dinosaur, cryptozoology, or military hardware articles.
 
2012-02-15 08:27:27 PM

dualplains: Came in here to say this. You come up with a theory that contravenes what is in the text books you teach from and expect the world to instantly fall at your feet? It's great that you can site all of your evidence, but you're basically asking them to change a point in their article from A to B based on one source, which is you (your references to your evidence are sources supporting your claim not supporting your change), while they have a dozen different sources claiming the point as A?

My god, man, get over yourself. Can't decide if I should include attentionwhore.jpg or welcometofarkcryingguy.jpg.

/I'll just settle for slashies


Where did you pull that BS from that I bolded?

He says in the article that he cited primary sources for his initial edits, Wikipedia won't use primary sources. So his book serves as a compendium of those primary sources in a secondary source that Wikipedia will use.

Just because it's the consensus of previously published research doesn't make it factual. If new reliable primary sources come along and contradicts the previously believed ideas of what happened, those deserve to be included. If you have a dozen different secondary sources saying something is a certain way that might mean that, *gasp*, all those sources used the same more limited primary source material and probably quoted from or used older publications that also are limited by their primary sources as a guide (especially if it's a general American history book). Or in net speak MOAR citations doesn't mean MOAR correct.

/am I the only one that read the article?
 
2012-02-15 08:30:42 PM

pedobearapproved: I have run into this more than a few times that I've just given up trying. The last was on a subject that I'd just had a peer-reviewed publication with. Mostly I added to the article and I also deleted one line that had suddenly become statistically and logically impossible with the new data available. Well not only were all of my changes reverted, my 5 new references added to "further reading" were deleted too. And it was done within minutes. Not even enough time to read if the new references and citations were correct.

Why would people want to contribute if some admin has it on e-mail alert that one of "their" articles was edited (BTW I hope it's an e-mail alert, otherwise that guy really has no life), and you have to have a discussion about each point you want to change. I just don't have the time for that crap.


Yeah, I think that's a lot of the problem. People revert changes without any regard for whether they really should be reverted.

Firethorn: So I looked up the current references( ~3 years newer), put the updated cite links and figures in. I deleted a couple statements that weren't in the new cites, added a couple that were. Nobody's said a peep.


Some pages aren't being defended by the south end of a northbound horse and the system works as it should.
 
2012-02-15 08:37:38 PM
My speed skating coach, silver medalist in the 1960 Olympics, died some years back, and though I had the date of death, they would not accept it.

If you look at any entry, you find many nagging mistakes: Exempli Gratia: the article on Rasputin refers to "Tsaritsa" Alexandra, when in fact she was a Tsarina. "Tsarina" means "Empress," while "Tsaritsa" means Empress' daughter, or Princess.

They also get numerous other facts wrong.
 
2012-02-15 08:38:30 PM

bugcrusher: In the talk page (new window) of the article, one commenter writes: "When Einstein proved in an experiment his theory was right, the scientific community reversed their positions even though he was in numerical inferiority. Why should Wikipedia be based on Colbert's standard of truthiness instead?"


I prefer the comments immediately preceding that:

i158.photobucket.com


/Don't banninate me, Gwen!
 
2012-02-15 08:39:01 PM

uh_clem: f the professor wants to change "conventional wisdom" he needs to do it via scholarly journals, articles, books


So you didn't actually read TFA, did you?
 
2012-02-15 08:39:58 PM

SomethingToDo: The miracle of Wikipedia is that this shiat doesn't happen much more often.

bugcrusher: The main issue is with WikiPedia's Reliable Sources (new window) guidelines :

+"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible...Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves..."

This puts legitimate scholars and subject matter experts like Messer-Kruse on the outside, and secondary source hunters, "Wikipedians" in control of the articles.


Yup, you can't cite your own research unless you are an anonymous guy who blogged something somwehere, then you can cite that as evidence just fine. Ran into a bit of that myself a long time ago, I went and found other sources with the information but by that time the admin already disagreed with me and he gets the final word.
 
2012-02-15 08:40:45 PM

pedobearapproved: /am I the only one that read the article?


I read TFA but he didn't offer his version of events as an alternate view to be proven or disproven. He literally went in and deleted the commonly accepted version of history and replaced it with his own... and then cited his own friggen' book... and THEN caused problems for the admins... and THEN tried it again 2 years later... and is NOW publicly freaking out about it.

I'm writing a book and it will be rock solid factually and should endure any real scrutiny from my peers but I certainly wouldn't try to forcefully revise the accepted knowledge on the subject and then throw a tantrum when my peers say "Wait a minute cowboy... that's all good and fine but this needs to pass muster before we start rewriting textbooks."

It doesn't work that way.
 
2012-02-15 08:43:18 PM

Talondel: which would be impossible. Instead, Wikipedia cites to sources that are peer reviewed.


Unless it disagrees with it. Try reading the article sometime. Maybe you should find out what an "encyclopedia" is. It is not simply a set of references to secondary sources.
 
2012-02-15 08:44:57 PM

jingks: He went about it all wrong though. He shouldn't have replaced the text but appended the new information to the next. Something along the lines of, "However, the court transcript (ref) shows that evidence was indeed given...". Just deleting the consensus and replacing it with his research was wrong as well. So was continually re-editing it after he was informed of his mistake.


I think they would have deleted that as well, wiki is wrong on this and it has been stated time and time again how they push certain viewpoints off their wikipion pages, they are never to be taken as factual just as a reference to find the full truth.

Anyone who gives them money is a sucker.
 
2012-02-15 08:49:40 PM
Just throwing this out there that it isn't uncommon for an expert in a field to make changes to Wikipedia and then throw a fit when their edits get reverted and editors start throwing words around like "policy" and "consensus" and shorthand like wp:due and wp:rs. Wikipedia has rules and it takes experience to navigate contested articles successfully.

/if an editor is legitimately being obstructionist or thinks they own an article there are ways to deal with that.
 
2012-02-15 08:54:06 PM

NkThrasher: Knara: Because Wikipedia should strive to be better, not be satisfied with being just a mindless conglomeration.

Better by what measure?

You seem to have the same misplaced expectation that is the actual problem. Wikipedia isn't there to be a factual reference for the "truth", it is there to be a collection of sourced information on a subject, whether or not it represents the 'truth' is irrelevant as long as it accurately represents the information that is available and able to be sourced.

By that measure, it is rather good in a general sense.


Not when they only represent the information that supports a particular case and refuse any entry with evidence for a different case.
 
2012-02-15 08:54:47 PM
CSB time:

I was reading wikipedia's page on Rolfing. It cited some research that was negative. So went and looked at the abstract of the research that was cited (its all I could get without getting past the pay wall) and added a sentence that was quoted from the abstract itself. The sentence was reverted so I went and requested an explanation. I was told they would look into the paper and they asked if anyone had the full research. I told them I was quoting the available research abstract from the link already cited. Didnt matter. Retarded.
 
2012-02-15 08:55:02 PM
Fact. Wikipedia is neither a wiki nor an encyclopedia. Discuss.
 
2012-02-15 08:55:51 PM

here to help: He literally went in and deleted the commonly accepted version of history and replaced it with his own... and then cited his own friggen' book... and THEN caused problems for the admins... and THEN tried it again 2 years later... and is NOW publicly freaking out about it.


You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?

Relevant edits (in case anyone is curious):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

None of them look too giant.
 
2012-02-15 08:56:20 PM
The problem on Wikipedia is not just the pompous, protectionist attitudes of editors. It's also the complete lack of diversity among the people who heavily edit the site.

This contributes significantly to one-sided perspectives on the site. And it also limits knowledge. Credible sources get dismissed by people who have no knowledge of the subject; worthless sources fail to be evaluated critically. Topics get moved for deletion all the time by basement dwellers who have no farking clue but assume that because it's irrelevant to them, it's irrelevant to everybody. And meanwhile, there's a book-length Wikipedia page for practically every Pokemon.
 
2012-02-15 08:59:14 PM
It should be noted that ""History is written by the victors" is a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, but nobody really knows who first said it?
 
2012-02-15 09:02:10 PM
A coworker of mine once changed the link of our "competition" to ratemykitten.com on a page listing various media outlets in our market. Stuck for years.
 
2012-02-15 09:04:02 PM
Mew (Pokémon)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mew
Sugimori151.png
National Pokédex
Mewtwo - Mew (#151) - Chikorita
Series Pokémon series The Jesus Chronicles ft. Jesus
First game Pokémon Red and Blue
Created by Shigeki Morimoto, Asia
Designed by Ken Sugimori
Voiced by Kōichi Yamadera (Mewtwo Strikes Back)
Satomi Kōrogi (Lucario and the Mystery of Mew)

Mew (ミュウ Myū?) is one of the fictional species of Pokémon creatures from Nintendo's and Game Freak's multi-billion-dollar[1] Pokémon media franchise-a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards, and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. It is considered a legendary Pokémon in the Pokémon video games and anime.

Mew was added to Pokémon Red and Blue by its creator, Game Freak programmer Shigeki Morimoto, as a secret character. As such, its presence has been surrounded by rumors and myths, which contributed to make the Pokémon franchise a success. Mew cannot be obtained in the games except from Nintendo promotional events, or glitching in Red, Blue, and Yellow.

Mew's first film appearance was in Pokémon: The First Movie as a main character alongside Mewtwo. The movie revealed that a fossilized Mew hair, found in the Guyana jungle by a team of scientists, was used to create Mewtwo, a genetically enhanced Mew clone. Mew later appeared in Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew as a main character alongside Lucario; the backstory of the film revolves around Mew's mysterious history and how it came to be so powerful. Pokémon: The Mastermind of Mirage Pokémon had a mirage Mew appear as a main character in the movie who helped Ash and friends try to defeat the Mirage Master.
Contents
[hide]

[edit] Concept and creation

Unlike other characters in the Pokémon franchise, Mew's development was not overseen by Ken Sugimori, but by Game Freak programmer Shigeki Morimoto. Morimoto programmed Mew into the game secretly, as a prank amongst the staff just prior to its release in Japan, intending it to be a Pokémon only Game Freak staff members would know about and be able to obtain.[2] Mew was added at the very end of the development of Pokémon Red and Green after the removal of debug features, freeing up just enough space to add the character despite being told not to alter the game any further at this point. Though not intended by the developers to be obtainable, due to a glitch, players were able to encounter it.[3]

In the spring of 1996, Game Freak president Satoshi Tajiri used the Japanese manga journal CoroCoro Comic as an experimental exhibition of Mew and distributed the first cards of it for the card game as free giveaways,[4] which surprised many at Game Freak, including Morimoto.[2] Due to the success of the experiment on April 15, 1996, Game Freak announced a contest to publicly release Mew to 151 winners.[5] Tajiri described using Mew to create hype around an "invisible character" within the game and to keep interest alive in the title and create rumors and myths about the game passed around by word of mouth,[6] which resulted in increased sales for the game.[7]
[edit] Design and characteristics

Like Mewtwo, Mew is a Psychic-type Pokémon with high stats.[8] Morimoto designed it as a pink, feline-esque Pokémon with large eyes and a long, thin tail that broadens at the end.[9] Its skin is covered with a layer of short, fine hair.[10] Its DNA combines the genetic composition of all existing Pokémon species;[11] the game states that scientists within the game view it as being the single ancestor of all other Pokémon.[12] It is shy and rarely seen by humans.[9][11] It is a legendary Pokémon[13][14] from the first generation, along with Articuno,[15] Zapdos,[16] Moltres,[17] and Mewtwo.[18] Mew's number in the National Pokédex is 151, the last of the first-generation Pokémon,[8] with 150 being Mewtwo[19] and 152 being Chikorita. In Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, the player can find journal entries in the Pokémon Mansion on Cinnabar Island stating that Mew was discovered deep in the jungles of Guyana, South America, on July 5 (the year is not specified),[20] and named on July 10,[21] and that it "gave birth" to Mewtwo on February 6.[22] The name mew is based on the onomatopoeia of a cat's cry, meow.[8]

In the video games, it is possible for Mew to learn any move that can be taught.[23] Other than Ditto, it is the only Pokémon that can transform into other Pokémon using the "Transform" technique.[8][9] In the anime, it is capable of flight, teleportation, shapeshifting, summoning giant pink bubbles of psychic energy (which serve various purposes such as closing itself in for protection, acting as a cushion, or simply for Mew's amusement of bouncing on),[24] and rendering itself invisible.[11]
[edit] Appearances
[edit] In the video games
This screenshot shows the player encountering Mew in Pokémon Red or Blue via a glitch.

Other than using cheating devices, Mew could not be obtained within the Pokémon video games except via glitches in Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow and Nintendo promotional events until My Pokémon Ranch was released.[8] One of the glitches involves exploiting programmed events, such as walking into the view of a Trainer, then using a Pokémon's "Fly" or "Teleport" move to escape the area right before the Trainer notices the player, and continuing to walk into a new area in the game. This changes some of the number values in the game's memory-similarly to how MissingNo. is found-and starts a battle with a wild Mew.[25]
[edit] In the anime

Mew's first major appearance in the Pokémon anime was in Pokémon: The First Movie where it served as one of the main characters. It was believed to be long-extinct and "the legendary and rare 'most powerful Pokémon ever'".[13] After years of research, a scientist uses a recombination of Mew's DNA to create Mewtwo,[18] a genetically enhanced clone of Mew who becomes the film's main antagonist.[13] The backstory of Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew revolves around Mew's mysterious history and how it came to be so powerful.[26] In the movie, a Pokémon "family tree" is shown;[27] the first Pokémon on it is Mew, and the last is Ho-Oh.[26]
[edit] In the manga

Mew appears in the Pokémon Adventures series of Pokémon manga. Mew, also known as the "Phantom Pokémon" in the manga, appears in the first chapter when the criminal organization Team Rocket tries to capture it. Pokémon Trainer Red also tries to capture it, but he is easily defeated by Mew.[28] In following chapters, it is revealed that Team Rocket wants to have Mew's DNA to finish the creation of Mewtwo, and Red and Trainer Green join forces to avoid it being captured.[29][30]
[edit] Cultural impact
[edit] Promotion and merchandising
Players who won Mew through Nintendo contests and events received a certificate with the identification number for their game.

Mew's presence as a "secret" Pokémon contributed to the success of the franchise.[4][7] A promotion in the April 1996 issue of CoroCoro Comics called the "Legendary Pokémon Offer" offered the 20 winners the opportunity to send their cartridges in for Nintendo to add Mew to their games. Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata attributes the success of the games to this contest. Since then, the weekly sales of Red and Green had began to match its previous monthly sales, and then becoming three to four times larger.[3] At Nintendo promotional events soon after the release of Pokémon Red and Blue, players could have it downloaded to their games.[31] Many fans of the game bought cheat devices only to obtain it.[9] Mew is also one of the Pokémon featured in the 1998 painting on the All Nippon Airways Boeing 747-400.[32] In September 2006, in celebration of the release of Lucario and the Mystery of Mew and Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team, players with a copy of Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, FireRed, or LeafGreen could go to a Toys "R" Us store to download it for free.[33] Included in the DVD of Lucario and the Mystery of Mew was a promotional Mew trading card.[27]
[edit] Critical reception

Due to its balanced statistics and ability to learn any move that comes from a Technical or Hidden Machine, Mew is regarded as one of the best Pokémon in Red, Blue, and Yellow.[34] Studies on the impact of fictional characters on children, such as those in Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon, have noted Mew as popular with younger female children who tend to be drawn to "cute" characters; Mewtwo in comparison was described as a polar opposite, popular with older male children who tend to be drawn to "tough or scary" characters.[35] The book Media and the Make-believe Worlds of Children noted a similar comparison, describing Mew as "child-like and gentle, combining characteristics of power and cuteness" and emphasizing the importance of the contrast for children between it and Mewtwo, and its role as a source of appeal for the character.[36] IGN listed Mew as one of the best Psychic types, alongside Mewtwo, Alakazam, and Starmie. They called it a good contender to Mewtwo, as well as an unpredictable Pokémon due to its ability to use any TM or HMs, items that teach Pokémon attacks.[37]

The revealing and distribution of Mew through organized events has been noted as a major reason for the series' success in Japan,[4] with the Japanese contest receiving over 78,000 entries, exceeding their initial expectation of 3000.[5][38] However, Computer and Video Games magazine criticized the exclusivity of Mew to Nintendo events as one of the worst aspects of Pokémon, noting that through the use of cheat devices such as the Pro Action Replay to access Mew, they were rendered obsolete.[39] UGO.com listed Mew sixth on their list of "The 25 Awesomest Hidden Characters".[40] Authors Tracey West and Katherine Noll called Mew the best Legendary Pokémon and the fifth best Pokémon overall.[41]. The High School report said that "Mew looks like a little monkey"

-------------------------------------------------------

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force [1] is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal.

The AUMF has also been cited by the administration as authority for engaging in electronic surveillance in ACLU v. NSA without obtaining a warrant of the special Court as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

[edit] Text of the AUMF
[snip]
[edit] Congressional votes
[edit] House of Representatives

On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).
[edit] Senate

On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).
[edit] AUMF as partial justification for Guantanamo military commissions

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the majority of the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the AUMF overrode Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, writing that there was nothing "even hinting" that this was Congress' intent.[2]
[edit] AUMF as partial justification for National Security Agency's eavesdropping program

The AUMF was also the basis of one of the principal arguments advanced by the Department of Justice in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, namely that the AUMF implicitly overrode the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[citation needed]
 
2012-02-15 09:06:54 PM

sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.


What the fark was the point of that post
 
2012-02-15 09:07:04 PM

bobbette: This contributes significantly to one-sided perspectives on the site. And it also limits knowledge. Credible sources get dismissed by people who have no knowledge of the subject; worthless sources fail to be evaluated critically.


reminds me of back when Richard Winters passed away. I tried adding it to there, only to be told that Pennlive.com was not a reliable source. o_O
 
2012-02-15 09:07:28 PM

MooseUpNorth: pedobearapproved: Also it takes seconds to verify that the book being cited is written by a professor, and newly published (2011) by Palgrave Macmillan, and academic publisher. This should hold a lot of weight in inputting facts. The problem isn't that they aren't letting him edit it, they problem is they aren't letting him exchange factual for non-factual/misleading information. I can see how their policy might hold true for opinion or as we usually call it "truth," but that's not what this is.

He jumped the gun. The next step is to convince his peers that he's right. When there's a significant degree of consensus (or even building consensus) among experts in his field, then (and only then) is it appropriate to update the encyclopedic entries with the new consensus (or the controversy.)


again, read the article, he's trying to update factual information.

FTFA: The wiki entry said: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing"

His primary sources factually state that: "One hundred and eighteen witnesses were called to testify, many of them unindicted co-conspirators who detailed secret meetings where plans to attack police stations were mapped out, coded messages were placed in radical newspapers, and bombs were assembled in one of the defendants' rooms

In what was one of the first uses of forensic chemistry in an American courtroom, the city's foremost chemists showed that the metallurgical profile of a bomb found in one of the anarchists' homes was unlike any commercial metal but was similar in composition to a piece of shrapnel cut from the body of a slain police officer"

What's to debate? He's not offering opinion, he has documentation showing that the prosecution did offer evidence connecting the defendants with the bombing. He did research, found more and better sources, so now you're saying he should wait and hope that more people find his research interesting enough to publish on before he changes factual entries. I doubt the 1886 Haymarket riots are going to stir article after article of new research, most history professors will probably read the new book and that will be that.

It all comes back to the fact that Wikipedia is flawed over something it should be able to easily fix.
 
2012-02-15 09:07:42 PM

scalpod: It should be noted that ""History is written by the victors" is a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, but nobody really knows who first said it?


It wasn't Neville Chamberlain
 
2012-02-15 09:07:43 PM

Voiceofreason01: Just throwing this out there that it isn't uncommon for an expert in a field to make changes to Wikipedia and then throw a fit when their edits get reverted and editors start throwing words around like "policy" and "consensus" and shorthand like wp:due and wp:rs. Wikipedia has rules and it takes experience to navigate contested articles successfully.

/if an editor is legitimately being obstructionist or thinks they own an article there are ways to deal with that.


Sadly, this is not uncommon anywhere on the internet. Wikipedia pages are much like web forums - they tend to be dominated by a few self-proclaimed overseers who often have some, but not expert, experience in the subject matter. The experts tend to be busy making a living doing whatever subject that is, and not commenting in public forums.

Challenging the perceived authority of said overseer often results in an aggressive posture, even when it is factually warranted.
 
2012-02-15 09:13:12 PM

SmithHiller: Fact. Wikipedia is neither a wiki nor an encyclopedia. Discuss.


i292.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-15 09:13:18 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.


So when he cites his source, being the actual trial documents in the Library of Congress???

Facts have a well-known non-Wiki-like bias.
 
2012-02-15 09:18:34 PM
Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.
 
2012-02-15 09:21:10 PM

100 Watt Walrus: FormlessOne: That's the gist of it. They're not telling him he can't write a minority opinion - they're telling him he can't replace the majority opinion with his own. He doesn't like that, because he's right, after all, and so he's throwing a fit.

You missed the part where the sources he cites are direct - "including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" - and thus more credible than other cited sources to the contrary. Wikipedia chose to ignore the validity of his sources and go with "majority rules" rather than hard facts.


I didn't miss a damned thing, actually. Wikipedia went with their well-published, easily-understood rules and refused to let an author repeatedly delete existing content. The author threw a hissy fit not because they told him the way he decided to include his well-researched, valid opinion in an article broke those rules.

Wikipedia, as has been stated by other folks in this thread, is not a peer-reviewed journal. If he wants to post on it, he needs to follow the rules like everybody else, and if he doesn't like it, he can simply accept being the secondary source someone else will cite when they post his information while following Wikipedia's rules.

pedobearapproved: It all comes back to the fact that Wikipedia is flawed over something it should be able to easily fix.


The fact is that Wikipedia is working as intended - the flaw is that an academician attempted to use it in a way that's discouraged, and then attempted to be a dick about it over and over again.
 
2012-02-15 09:23:42 PM

FormlessOne: The author threw a hissy fit not because they


FTFM.

andrewagill: None of them look too giant.


Then he'll get over it.
 
2012-02-15 09:24:08 PM

redmid17: sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.

What the fark was the point of that post


It's comparing what Wikipedians consider to be important topics.

Another time for a CSB, if you look over the talk pages of many historical LGBT figures - say ones who are mentioned in biographies of old-school lesbians like Mercedes de Acosta or Natalie Clifford Barney - you will very quickly run into Wikipedians commenting that even mentioning gay connections is "libel" while heterosexual connections should be always be taken at face value. Which is preposterous considering that even today, Hollywood is filled with straight people and homos alike engaging in showmances for the press.

For example, Greta Garbo's Wikipedia page lists a bunch of showmances (I'm not pulling this out of my ass, they are treated as such in biographies of her) described as serious relationships, and her relationships with women are all described as "alleged". I'm not sure how many people have to have memoirs that say "I nailed that foxy lez, Garbo" or "Here are all of Garbo's love letters to me" before you can take off the "alleged" label. Anyways, half the references on her page, even to her relationships with men, are from two biographies where Garbo's bisexuality is the main topic, but the guardians of her article steadfastly refuse to put her in the LGBT actors category. On her talk page, they discuss how that would be insulting to Garbo and that her sexuality "doesn't really matter anyways", as if it's somehow better to be inaccurate.
 
2012-02-15 09:24:16 PM
That's too bad... Yet one more noble endeavor that starts out with a good concept then manages to somehow eat itself with its own success... The NRA and PETA are two more examples, they both have good ideas at their core, I support their basic principles(2nd Amendment rights and the reduction of animal cruelty), yet due to both organization's idiotic representatives and their antics, I wouldn't be a member of either if you aid me.

Wikipedia suffers the same way, a few(very public) incidents by some total douchebag A-holes, and now it's pretty much good as a jumping off point to do further research elsewhere. Now if I find out about the source inspiration for 'Red Barchetta' by Rush, it just means that I have to then take what I found and search for corroboration elsewhere.

And they want me to DONATE to their ridiculous little website?
 
2012-02-15 09:26:44 PM
Revionist history is bad history. He clearly came to the table with a pre-determined notion; the individuals convicted of the crime were guilty of a conspiracy.

Lingg, the one who committed suicide in his jail cell by blowing his face off with a blasting cap was almost certainly the one who manufactured the bomb that was thrown. Schnaubelt, Meng, or Schwab probably threw the bomb, but the others? Planning a rally and throwing a bomb are two very different things.

The only evidence linking the other 7 defendants to the bomb throwing was based on witness testimoney only, no manifesto, no smoking gun.

Waller would have testified that his own mother was plotting to kill the police in order to avoid being prosecuted. Even with that he specifically states no dynamite/bombs were discussed at the Greif's Hall meeting.

The entire conspiracy theory relies on Thompson and Gilmer not being liars.

Thompson who didn't speak German and Gilmer the part-time police officer.

So really no, the prosecution didn't link 7 of the 8 defendants with bomb throwing. Dr. Messer-Kruse is and has barked up the wrong tree with his premise and his "war" with Wiki is absurd. Sorry buddy, dozens of historians have written on this subject and most come to the same conclusion, the trial was a sham.
 
2012-02-15 09:28:15 PM
I came to say what a few other level-headed people are saying: Wiki is an encyclopedia, it's not their *job* to be on the cutting edge of newly-uncovered facts. Just like the Wiki editors said, yes, it is the job of the encyclopedia to print popularly accepted truths. An encyclopedia is the last in the current events reporting food chain. What's so hard to grasp about this? You wouldn't expect a print encyclopedia to jump on a story this fast.
 
2012-02-15 09:31:50 PM

redmid17: sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.

What the fark was the point of that post


It doesn't need a point, it just needs citations.
 
2012-02-15 09:36:17 PM

FormlessOne: andrewagill: None of them look too giant.

Then he'll get over it.


The person I was replying to said that he rewrote the article. Nothing of the sort happened. He made major changes to maybe two sentences, and altered a couple others making factual corrections.

They are important changes, but hardly count as a rewrite.
 
2012-02-15 09:39:40 PM

sprawl15: redmid17: sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.

What the fark was the point of that post

It doesn't need a point, it just needs citations.


digitaldaily.allthingsd.com
 
2012-02-15 09:50:50 PM
In college, we were not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. It's nice to grab the references section and springboard off of that, but it's far too shaky academically to be used as a reference in a scholarly paper.

Of course, that didn't stop some people in my classes, some of whom have mastered Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, done... some of the papers I saw still had the section headings in them. The profs had no quibble whatsoever about failing them, and having them booted for plagiarism.

Primary and secondary sources... not Wikipedia.
 
2012-02-15 09:54:13 PM

FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.


In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?
 
2012-02-15 09:56:05 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?


You seem to have the same trouble with subject/verb agreements.
 
2012-02-15 10:01:44 PM

redmid17: You seem to have the same trouble with subject/verb agreements.


Fine - If you'd like me to make it a informal forum post into a formal one. Here goes:

FuturePastNow, please note that in your profile, you mentioned that you still believe Pluto is a planet; If you have difficulty with one set of academic standards, who is to say that you won't have difficulty in the use of other sets of standards?
 
2012-02-15 10:03:29 PM

FuturePastNow: I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.


Comma splice.
 
2012-02-15 10:04:03 PM

nickerj1: Degenerate Monkey: I can't imagine ever having enough faith in Wikipedia to cite it directly. Anyone who could bring themselves to do that should be thoroughly beaten with a stack of books.

[www.patentlyo.com image 279x320]


Because one doesn't cite Wiki, one follows to the reference/source link and cites that.

AKA: how to win at college ("of arts" majors only) in the 21st century without reading books.
 
2012-02-15 10:05:24 PM
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.
 
2012-02-15 10:07:00 PM

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".


This.

\WP admin
 
2012-02-15 10:07:41 PM

CrispFlows: redmid17: You seem to have the same trouble with subject/verb agreements.

Fine - If you'd like me to make it a informal forum post into a formal one. Here goes:

FuturePastNow, please note that in your profile, you mentioned that you still believe Pluto is a planet; If you have difficulty with one set of academic standards, who is to say that you won't have difficulty in the use of other sets of standards?


I just found it ironic that you were criticizing his efforts to fix spelling and grammar errors while committing one yourself. Pluto was a planet for 76 years and was reclassified as a result of finding something slightly bigger. Both Eris and Pluto have moons. I don't think that anyone should really quibble with them being considered planets, especially since they are "dwarf" planets.
 
2012-02-15 10:08:28 PM

andrewagill: here to help: He literally went in and deleted the commonly accepted version of history and replaced it with his own... and then cited his own friggen' book... and THEN caused problems for the admins... and THEN tried it again 2 years later... and is NOW publicly freaking out about it.

You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?

Relevant edits (in case anyone is curious):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

None of them look too giant.


Uh... wtf would I want to read all that crap? Wikipedia is what it is. If you or any of the other people here spazzing out about the way it is operated then start your own online encyclopedia. I'm sure the admins are dicks but that's generally the truth anywhere on public sites (Fark modmins excluded because ya'll are super sexy and awesome and smart and please don't hurt me). You know why that is? Because every numbskull with a two bit opinion is constantly acting like a freak just like this guy is. It'll wear on ya.

I read the guy's opinion about Wiki in his OWN words in TFA and he's coming off like a self important douche who doesn't seem to think the rules of wikipedia apply to him because somehow his massive intellect trumps all. So if HIS view of what happened between him and wiki makes me think he's a self absorbed whiner I don't think I need to waste time trying to prove to myself otherwise.

I don't question whether or not he is factually correct but he went about this all wrong. If an unknown Albert Einstein walked into libraries with a Sharpie and crossed out faulty information from texts then stapled his own theorems onto the page it WOULD have been vandalism no matter how right he was. This dude did the modern day equivalent of that and THEN spit in the librarian's face when they tried to repair the damage... and THEN tried it again a couple of years later.

If academia worked the way this guy is operating Creationism would be scientific fact in an instant as opposed to being judged and shouted down as the bullsh*t it clearly is.
 
2012-02-15 10:09:09 PM
Wiki:

Fark is a community website created by Drew Curtis that allows members to comment on a daily batch of news articles and other items from various websites. As of June 2009, the site boasts approximately four million unique visitors per month, which puts it among the top 100 English language websites. The site receives approximately 2,000 story submissions per day and approximately 50 of them are publicly displayed on the site. Drew likes tits.
The site is frequently used as a humorous source for news by radio stations, as well as most late night comedy shows. Founder Drew Curtis says the stories are selected without intentional political bias, but that he rather tries to run both far-left and far-right articles.[1]
 
2012-02-15 10:09:58 PM

Five Tails of Fury: 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".

This.

\WP admin


Yes because the direct testimony from the Library of Congress is not even remotely verifiable.

/not a WP admin
//not part of the problem
 
2012-02-15 10:11:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: 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?


You are aware that there actually is a team in Cleveland called the Cleveland Steamers. They're one of the 4 roller derby teams that compete regularly as part of the Burning River Roller Girls.

http://www.burningriverrollergirls.com/teams_cleveland_steamers.html

For what it's worth, it's the best buy for your money in sports in this town.
 
2012-02-15 10:23:15 PM

Also dudes like this would be all up in your wikis and stealin' yer troofs...

assets.sbnation.com
 
2012-02-15 10:23:21 PM
If Wikipedia was in charge of the world's knowledge we would all still be reading about how the sun revolves around the earth. And there would be a few rejected edits from Galileo.
 
2012-02-15 10:28:32 PM

here to help: Uh... wtf would I want to read all that crap?


s/You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?/You know how I know you can't read diffs?/

FTFM.
 
2012-02-15 10:31:40 PM
I found that out in 2 instances, one in a technical detail I tried to correct on a rollercoaster I had a hand in the design. The other was a game list from my jfirst job of designing games at an arcade company. Decided to put up a gorup on facebook bout the job instead. Sigh. Thanks, wiki.
 
2012-02-15 10:33:08 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?


That comment was intended in jest, a reference to a long-lost post about how an astronomy textbook I paid $130 for was rendered obsolete a year after I bought it.

You sound like one of those f*ckstick Wiki editors, so perhaps you can tell me why the correction of a spelling error would be reverted.
 
2012-02-15 10:34:09 PM

Chagrin: FuturePastNow: I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

Comma splice.


There's a conjunction there, you idiot.

Cerebral Ballsy: I came to say what a few other level-headed people are saying: Wiki is an encyclopedia, it's not their *job* to be on the cutting edge of newly-uncovered facts. Just like the Wiki editors said, yes, it is the job of the encyclopedia to print popularly accepted truths. An encyclopedia is the last in the current events reporting food chain. What's so hard to grasp about this? You wouldn't expect a print encyclopedia to jump on a story this fast.


This is too much truthiness.
 
2012-02-15 10:37:33 PM

andrewagill: here to help: Uh... wtf would I want to read all that crap?

s/You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?/You know how I know you can't read diffs?/

FTFM.


I also wanted to point out that not making your links pop is lame and your mother smells of elderberries.
 
2012-02-15 10:39:54 PM
This article describes exactly the reason why Jimmy Wales will never get a nickel of my money.

Also, it's written into my syllabi/course outlines that anyone who cites Wikipedia as a source gets an automatic "F"
 
2012-02-15 10:42:37 PM

FuturePastNow: You sound like one of those f*ckstick Wiki editors, so perhaps you can tell me why the correction of a spelling error would be reverted.


Possibly because it needs to be pointed out in talk before editing?
 
2012-02-15 10:44:03 PM
Asshats are found everywhere, it seems.
 
2012-02-15 10:48:42 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: You sound like one of those f*ckstick Wiki editors, so perhaps you can tell me why the correction of a spelling error would be reverted.

Possibly because it needs to be pointed out in talk before editing?


Because it's too much effort to see what was edited?
 
2012-02-15 10:53:08 PM
Uhh... So, looking at the article's talk page where this argument took place... All in January of 2009. Why wait three years later to write up an article about a three year old internet spat that took place over less than 24 hours?

/Methinks this was a bullshiat PR move for his book
//As the Mrs said, "It's so nice to see somebody correcting facts misrepresenting facts."
///Doesn't expect a whole lot of people to get to comment 290+ and see this after 6 pages of internet war about how Wikipedia is/isn't evil/trolls/amazing/fail..
 
2012-02-15 11:04:23 PM

redmid17: Because it's too much effort to see what was edited?


It's all in speculation - I know little of Wikipedia. I'm assuming it's to inform the reasoning of the change before the change is made.
 
2012-02-15 11:17:08 PM
I really believe in what Wikipedia is all about and I really want it to succeed.

I've noticed a sustained increase in for example, "conservative" activists relentlessly asserting spin and fiction as "fact" - their work is simple and easy and on the offense, the work of those trying to preserve some semblance of reality is difficult and defensive.

I wonder if Wikipedia can survive the onslaught of fanatics.
 
2012-02-15 11:23:34 PM

Cinaed: Wikipedia is useful in its convenience.
Nothing less, nothing more.
If you want real information, go to the farking library.


Whats a library?
 
2012-02-15 11:25:14 PM
Current record I've had for having an edit reverted is 29 minutes. It was an article about the Red Wings' starting goalie, and one of his nicknames seen multiple places on the Web and in a few interviews is Tiberius. Editing the article to include this (plus citations from MLive, numerous well-known blogs and other cites) led to a "Let's not go through this again, his nickname is Jimmy. Fan blogs don't count as sources.".

Excuse me, here's a video clip with a teammate calling him Tiberius. Also, where the hell do you think player nicknames come from but from fans?

Of course, I also got one tagged as "vandalism" for pointing out in the article on HIV/AIDS that the case from 1959 likely was actually AIDS since P. carinii is essentially AIDS-defining.
 
2012-02-15 11:33:10 PM
Wikipedia: Serious Business.
 
2012-02-15 11:35:46 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?


Well, given that even in Academia, the "demotion" of Pluto from planet status was more of a bureaucratic shell-game among the IAU than a broad scientific consensus, don't rush to judgment. There are plenty of professional astronomers that disagree with the IAU defintion, it's not like it's Scientific Heresy to say that Pluto is a planet and you're instantly a flat-earth believing, climate-change denying, creationism spouting anti-Science type if you say it is.

The vote was thrown in on the last day of the IAU's annual conference, after most of the attendees had left (and most proposals before that were for definitions of "planet" that would preserve Pluto's status, but the advocates of those positions had already left the conference when this vote was taken at the last minute). Less than 5% of professional astronomers even were at the vote, and the vote was far from unanimous. There are movements within professional astronomy to change the definition back, or to re-define "planet" to a broader definition that might include Ceres and Charon as well.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926703.100-pluto-controversy- r ages-as-planet-debate-continues.html (new window)
 
2012-02-16 12:00:21 AM

here to help: read TFA but he didn't offer his version of events as an alternate view to be proven or disproven. He literally went in and deleted the commonly accepted version of history and replaced it with his own... and then cited his own friggen' book...


Musta missed this part: "I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress."

The Official Record trumps "the commonly accepted version".
 
2012-02-16 12:28:50 AM

CrispFlows: redmid17: Because it's too much effort to see what was edited?

It's all in speculation - I know little of Wikipedia. I'm assuming it's to inform the reasoning of the change before the change is made.


I also go out of my way to make judgments from a place of ignorance.
 
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.
 
2012-02-16 05:50:06 PM
"Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." - Nobel Laureate Henry Kissinger

(Or maybe someone else said it first).
 
2012-02-16 07:11:26 PM

FormlessOne: That's the gist of it. They're not telling him he can't write a minority opinion - they're telling him he can't replace the majority opinion with his own. He doesn't like that, because he's right, after all, and so he's throwing a fit.


Except his is not an opinion. Saying the prosecution never linked the defendants to the crime is an opinion. Citing the court record where the prosecution links the defendant to the crime is a fact.

If what he posted was an opinion then you'd be right. But we're not arguing about opinions. We're arguing over a fact that is crowded out of references by mass laziness.
 
2012-02-16 07:19:33 PM
It's pretty obvious who in this thread acts as "Wiki guards".

I used to edit Wikipedia on technical issues. Surprisingly a lot of technical articles on telecom had bad info. All due to the same repetitive nature of mass misinformation.
 
2012-02-16 08:45:36 PM
Okay, I'll end the intellectual controversy by admitting this:

I started the Haymarket riots when I blew up that thing whatever I'm supposed to have blowed up.

Thus, all discussion is now over. Discuss.
 
2012-02-17 01:57:25 AM

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.


College is academics teaching the masses for money.
You get ONE person's viewpoint presented as fact.

Wikipedia is the masses educating each other for free.
You get multiple people coming to a consensus.

Wikipedia is the antithesis of colleges.
And it will eventually replace them, to a large degree.
 
2012-02-17 02:15:57 AM

Without Fail: Wikipedia is the antithesis of colleges.
And it will eventually replace them, to a large degree.


Wikipedia literally doesn't allow much for peer review. To be peer reviewed, it has to have qualified experts to review the accuracy of the work or test any flaws that could occur.

Databases full of peer reviewed journals would far trump Wikipedia. I have access to one and I'm blown away by how much accurate and updating information there is in there.

So no, it would not replace college - not even by a long shot.
 
2012-02-17 02:25:39 AM

CrispFlows: Databases full of peer reviewed journals would far trump Wikipedia. I have access to one and I'm blown away by how much accurate and updating information there is in there.

So no, it would not replace college - not even by a long shot.


I should have been a bit more clear. Information sources LIKE Wikipedia AND 'databases full of peer reviewed journals' will largely replace the academic model as the predominant source of education.
 
2012-02-17 02:32:50 AM

Without Fail: I should have been a bit more clear. Information sources LIKE Wikipedia AND 'databases full of peer reviewed journals' will largely replace the academic model as the predominant source of education.


Ah!

Then I would agree with you, that is - if the average student don't mind being an self motivated autodidacts.

If the degree system allows a way to obtain a degree via tests (much like the CLEP tests) and submitted assignments (as a way to rack up the man hours of experience or understanding), this would be an awesome system to compliment such databases.
 
2012-02-17 08:47:31 AM
I've had edits rejected by article babysitters before. I'd give quotations direct from the New York Farking Times and it would get deleted back out simply because the wiki squatter didn't like the way it portrayed something that was of personal interest to them.
 
2012-02-17 10:14:16 AM
This thread taught me that the singular of "data" is "anecdote".
 
2012-02-17 11:08:52 AM

Without Fail:
College is academics teaching the masses for money.
You get ONE person's viewpoint presented as fact.

Wikipedia is the masses educating each other for free.
You get multiple people coming to a consensus.

Wikipedia is the antithesis of colleges.
And it will eventually replace them, to a large degree.


Bullshiat.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it makes an average guy with a net connection who can Google things treated the same as an expert with advanced degrees and decades of experience.

On Wikipedia, somebody with no social life who is obsessed with a topic and has no education or training, and possibly even a seriously biased viewpoint, can manipulate the system and act as a personal little watchdog of his favorite article and skew things.

In academia, people get to their position (more or less) by merit. Years of study and training, and proven accomplishments are required for a substantial position.

Wikipedia treats the guy in his mother's basement Googling about some obscure topic he is obsessed with (and the mass-market information he receives from a cursory net search) as being equal to the knowledge and research of a career scholar.

Wikipedia is nifty as a handy quick reference, but to say it will replace academia is somewhere between naive and ignorant.
 
Displayed 361 of 361 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report