Yea, but what Vinni says about Andy is false...
What Andy says about Vinni is true.
What Andy says about Vinni is true.
Buy on AliExpress.com
World's newest state (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter The Arif
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
It's a wee bit time consuming going to a library, scanning pages from a petroleum and natural gas economics book for the purpose of posting it on a forum. There really isn't much information regarding this subject online unfortunately. Moreover, the stuff online is probably written in Turkish/Arabic anyway.
It's fun, Enron. You got into this on principle and so did I. Neither of us disagree with the argument, only the way it was used. 
Was just waiting for your reply.
Well, they do these experiments now and again to measure how accurate and reliable Wikipedia is. From that it transpires that it's actually comparable to sources like Britannica and in some cases more accurate. These are sample tests, noone's going to examine the whole thing. On the other hand Jimmy Wales isn't quite happy, because he says that the quality of an encyclopedia is measured by its lowest quality articles, and he was hoping to do better.
Nevertheless, I object to your implication that sources of information are black and white and thus dismissing Wikipedia out of hand. The fact is that it is considered an excellent source of information and aside from the fact that it is editable and open to vandalism and purposeful misinformation, that stuff gets taken out pretty quick because they are monitoring all the edits in real time. Wikipedia has over 1000 volunteers 'core staff' who have a ticker of edits in front of them and for articles that are frequently abused they keep a close watch on them. Compare that to Britannica having a staff of 1000 (or whatever) people who keep it up to date and factual, and what is the difference exactly? Are the Wikipedia people inherently more suspicious do you think?
There are stories about Wikipedia abuse quite often, where they identify a series of systematic edit from the same source and you read somewhere that some company (or members of Congress) is trying to mess with it. That already shows they can detect it.
Of course you can. There's nothing wrong with skepticism. I used to think CNN was a really good news source, now I don't trust them because of the regular reports of censorship and bias. That doesn't make me say "anything you might have seen on CNN is invalid". It doesn't make CNN "irrelevant".
This is not a black and white issue. Information is never pure. Wikipedia might be somewhat high risk because you never know if someone had just edited something that has yet to be peer reviewed. So maybe an article (or section of it) that hasn't been changed for a month is safer. Or maybe that's just because noone has looked at it yet. There's no way of knowing. But just because 5 phone numbers in your phone book might be incorrect doesn't mean the whole thing is useless.
Was just waiting for your reply.
Well, they do these experiments now and again to measure how accurate and reliable Wikipedia is. From that it transpires that it's actually comparable to sources like Britannica and in some cases more accurate. These are sample tests, noone's going to examine the whole thing. On the other hand Jimmy Wales isn't quite happy, because he says that the quality of an encyclopedia is measured by its lowest quality articles, and he was hoping to do better.
Nevertheless, I object to your implication that sources of information are black and white and thus dismissing Wikipedia out of hand. The fact is that it is considered an excellent source of information and aside from the fact that it is editable and open to vandalism and purposeful misinformation, that stuff gets taken out pretty quick because they are monitoring all the edits in real time. Wikipedia has over 1000 volunteers 'core staff' who have a ticker of edits in front of them and for articles that are frequently abused they keep a close watch on them. Compare that to Britannica having a staff of 1000 (or whatever) people who keep it up to date and factual, and what is the difference exactly? Are the Wikipedia people inherently more suspicious do you think?
There are stories about Wikipedia abuse quite often, where they identify a series of systematic edit from the same source and you read somewhere that some company (or members of Congress) is trying to mess with it. That already shows they can detect it.
Of course you can. There's nothing wrong with skepticism. I used to think CNN was a really good news source, now I don't trust them because of the regular reports of censorship and bias. That doesn't make me say "anything you might have seen on CNN is invalid". It doesn't make CNN "irrelevant".
This is not a black and white issue. Information is never pure. Wikipedia might be somewhat high risk because you never know if someone had just edited something that has yet to be peer reviewed. So maybe an article (or section of it) that hasn't been changed for a month is safer. Or maybe that's just because noone has looked at it yet. There's no way of knowing. But just because 5 phone numbers in your phone book might be incorrect doesn't mean the whole thing is useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)
Ohh my God, ohh my God. Somebody edited it and said zero isn't a number! Oh my God. That means Wikipedia is totally false! Pipelines in Turkey, World World I existed? Blasphemy!
Ohh my God, ohh my God. Somebody edited it and said zero isn't a number! Oh my God. That means Wikipedia is totally false! Pipelines in Turkey, World World I existed? Blasphemy!
It's fun, Enron. You got into this on principle and so did I. Neither of us disagree with the argument, only the way it was used.
Sorry dude, I had to hit the store and move my car.
That's my point. Sure the some if not many of the articles are very accurate. What about those that aren't? Wikipedia doesn't have peer review criteria or a rating system or anything to let the reader know the strength of the information he or she is accessing. That said, you shouldn't use Wikipedia when you have better sources available.
That is nice and all. Wikipedia is 100% right to use volunteers to fix error. But why would I take a chance on getting the information they haven't gotten around to editing? Especially when there are other, better sources. And in this particular case there were.
I'm glad they can detect it. I wouldn't use either Britannica or Wikipedia. Other than for general information. I think sources of information have to black and white, in this day and age there can be no maybes.
I see your point, but then again the two media outlets are separate mediums. CNN, as we all know, is an audio visual medium. Wikipedia, is merely print. I don't see the two as comparable. Generally when you watch a news story there is some video streaming to give you another viewpoint of what is being fed to you. Another thing is that most of us know the people giving us our information. We know Chris Mathews and we know where he stands politically, therefore we know in what context to take his information. We know Glen Beck and his views. Also we generally know the stances of the networks such as Fox, CNN, BBC, etc. We know where our information comes from we know who it comes from and that makes it a lot easier to digest and come to our own conclusions. Wikipedia doesn't offer that. You have to take a chance and hope someone hasn't messed with the information. I don't like that.
If you have access to a better, more accurate phone book. Why keep the old one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)
Ohh my God, ohh my God. Somebody edited it and said zero isn't a number! Oh my God. That means Wikipedia is totally false! Pipelines in Turkey, World World I existed? Blasphemy!
Ohh my God, ohh my God. Somebody edited it and said zero isn't a number! Oh my God. That means Wikipedia is totally false! Pipelines in Turkey, World World I existed? Blasphemy!