World's newest state (6 Viewers)

[Martin]

Exactly what I was saying. I take back what I said to Burke about you. But I still think you're an ass.

I'm glad, I worked pretty hard to earn it.

That's my point. Sure the some if not many of the articles are very accurate. What about those that aren't?

It's statistical sampling though. It's like you observe cars on the road and you only measure the speed of every 10th car. Then you use statistical methods to make a claim about all the cars. You don't think that when a 3rd party does a review of Britannica they check the whole thing, do you?

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.

Actually it does. Try submitting the article "Enron is the man on the moon" and see what happens to it. It won't be removed immediately if it looks somewhat legit, but they will soon stick a tag on it saying "the claims in this article are disputed" and so on to give the reader a heads up.

The condemnation of Wikipedia seems to come from people who think it's like a billboard in a certain place in town, where people just come and stick whatever they want on it. And if someone comes along who spots false information, and they're not too lazy to take it off, they fix it. That's just very far from the way it's being managed.

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.

Because chances are you will find much more timely and up to date (and perhaps more extensive) information on 'pedia than anywhere else. In some cases that matters.

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.

What a terribly odd thing to say. Is this really how you see information? 100% true OR false?

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.

Yes, this is exactly the lack of accountability problem 'pedia has. You don't know where the information is coming from.

But I have to say also that it is FUD to an extent. Of course you can say that "because the process is such, the result can never be good", but that remains a hypothetical until you back it up with data. Don't you think that if 'pedia was so crap there wouldn't be plenty of people with an axe to grind? Well so far noone has come out to condemn it.

If you have access to a better, more accurate phone book. Why keep the old one?

That's the whole point, 'pedia is the new phonebook :wink:

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

I'm glad, I worked pretty hard to earn it.




It's statistical sampling though. It's like you observe cars on the road and you only measure the speed of every 10th car. Then you use statistical methods to make a claim about all the cars.



Actually it does. Try submitting the article "Enron is the man on the moon" and see what happens to it. It won't be removed immediately if it looks somewhat legit, but they will soon stick a tag on it saying "the claims in this article are disputed" and so on to give the reader a heads up.

The condemnation of Wikipedia seems to come from people who think it's like a billboard in a certain place in town, where people just come and stick whatever they want on it. And if someone comes along who spots false information, and they're not too lazy to take it off, they fix it. That's just very far from the way it's being managed.




Because chances are you will find much more timely and up to date (and perhaps more extensive) information on 'pedia than anywhere else. In some cases that matters.



What a terribly odd thing to say. Is this really how you see information? 100% true OR false?




Yes, this is exactly the lack of accountability problem 'pedia has. You don't know where the information is coming from.

But I have to say also that it is FUD to an extent. Of course you can say that "because the process is such, the result can never be good", but that remains a hypothetical until you back it up with data. Don't you think that if 'pedia was so crap there wouldn't be plenty of people with an axe to grind? Well so far noone has come out to condemn it.




That's the whole point, 'pedia is the new phonebook :wink:

Why not just use a better one? If it is available. If you have other sources and evidence, then why would you throw Wikipedia in?

 

[Zé Tahir]

Where is this thread going?

 

[Martin]

Why not just use a better one? If it is available. If you have other sources and evidence, then why would you throw Wikipedia in?

That's not the argument. The argument is whether you can reasonably use Wikipedia as a source. If you're unclear on the topic I'm waiting for you to retract that ridiculous "you lose by default for using wikipedia" statement :wink:

 

[Enron]

That's not the argument. The argument is whether you can reasonably use Wikipedia as a source. If you're unclear on the topic I'm waiting for you to retract that ridiculous "you lose by default for using wikipedia" statement :wink:

Sure I can do that. "I retract my Wikipedia equals lose by default statement". Boom! Retraction.

Still I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source to try and win an argument. And doing so when other avenues are available will still weaken your argument.

 

[Martin]

Still I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source to try and win an argument. And doing so when other avenues are available will still weaken your argument.

I see you're dying to change the subject to strategy. Let's make it another night, I'm going to bed any minute.

 

[Enron]

I see you're dying to change the subject to strategy. Let's make it another night, I'm going to bed any minute.

Do your thing big man. Another night it is. :coffee:

 

[Enron]

Where is this thread going?

I don't think The Thread knows.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Yeah, I said "All websites are wrong". Hey I might not scan them, but I can cite my sources for you if you'd like. Stop being so pissed off for no reason.

But he has a reason, and I don't even think he is that pissed.

 

[Enron]

But he has a reason, and I don't even think he is that pissed.

Well its a weak reason.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

I think the term is "frivolous."

 

[Zé Tahir]

We're not exactly on topic in here, but let's not go way off topic shall we.

 

[Enron]

Yeah it'll go back once our Balkan brothers wake up.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

But they have an ethnic cleansing at 9:00 am, so it might be a while until they get on.

 

[Enron]

But they have an ethnic cleansing at 9:00 am, so it might be a while until they get on.

Still that only puts them off til, oh say, 10:25.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Word!

 

[Vinman]

no one's denying that there are pipelines...only for what you say we are going to do to take Iraq's oil

and wiki and youtube sources dont impress me (see Juve training video...or dont you want to comment on that ??)

you make statements about this government basically stealing Iraq's oil, and then you make insinuations about our govenments role in the 9-11 attacks, so the onus is on YOU to prove the allegations, not for me to disprove your dillusions of grandeur

I watched the debate tonight, and Barack never mentioned any plot to rob Iraq's oil, or put blame on the US govenment for 9-11 (he said Al Queda did it)...and he also said that Israel was the USA's BIGGEST ally in the world, and that as president, he would continue very friendly relations

Andy ??? Can we vote for this obvious enemy of the USA....or should we just complete our write in ballots for NORM CHOMSKY ????





and he will now be called "Norm"

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Or should we just misspell his name?

 

[Vinman]

Or should we just misspell his name?

you catch on fast !!!

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

...and if Al-Queda was responsible for 9-11, then why not invade Saudi Arabia? 22 of 25 high jackers were Saudi. That's a fact, and what do we do? The day after 9-11, Bush shipped Osama's brethren out of the country on private jets.

Of course he's going to say shit like that though, he's trying to get elected, fuckhead.