I have come to the conclusion that this study--and Wikipedia--are proof the apocolypse is nigh and our civilization is doomed.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I also hear that some students, after not studying or being an idiot, receive grades of F! How negative!
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage obviously shouldn't have said:
It's like people think they have a right to feel good about themselves no matter how often or badly they screw up.
I found this amazeing concept, If you screw-up alot in a game and can't get better, don't fucking play.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Worse: Sporting stores that don't actually sell sporting gear--just shoes and trackies.
Some 'University Sportswear' store opened up in the mall here last week and they sell REGULAR CLOTHES, oh the horror.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Alidane absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Hey, what's wrong with wikipedia?
Oh, I don't know. . .maybe the fact that any idiot can edit it, and there's no expert verification of the contents? Duh. Since when were encyclopedias written by laymen, through a process of consensus?
If that doesn't scare you, then my point is proven.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
Oh, I don't know. . .maybe the fact that any idiot can edit it, and there's no expert verification of the contents? Duh. Since when were encyclopedias written by laymen, through a process of consensus?If that doesn't scare you, then my point is proven.
There's nothing at all alarming about Wikipedia. It's an online reference point for trivial things; everyone knows it's not reliable.
Edit: People learn many things and know many things only by word of mouth; I'd say Wikipedia is far more reliable than that, though it's certainly has little value beyond trivia. Kuroi Madoushi fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 03:53 AM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Bloodsage spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Oh, I don't know. . .maybe the fact that any idiot can edit it, and there's no expert verification of the contents? Duh. Since when were encyclopedias written by laymen, through a process of consensus?If that doesn't scare you, then my point is proven.
Yeah, but everybody knows it's that way, so what does it matter? It's still informational.
quote:
Kuroi Madoushi's fortune cookie read:
There's nothing at all alarming about Wikipedia. It's an online reference point for trivial things; everyone knows it's not reliable.
Did you just forget to suck his dick for once?
Oh my god.
quote:
Bloodsage has funnier quote texts than me:
Oh, I don't know. . .maybe the fact that any idiot can edit it, and there's no expert verification of the contents? Duh. Since when were encyclopedias written by laymen, through a process of consensus?If that doesn't scare you, then my point is proven.
Someone tried to pass in a research paper in my history course with wikipedia references.
The professor had to assign an extra class of what constitutes a reliable resource, and what exactly a 'primary source' is.
Edit: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, as long as you recognize that it's not reliable, it's all good. I prefer to think of it as a guide more than anything, rather then say, the 100% truth. Liam fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 03:51 AM.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Robocop:
WTF is consumer ed? If it's taught by a coach, it must be something akin to Study Hall, yes?
It was basic information on topics like balancing a checkbook, the stockmarket, buying a house, and other stuff I forgot.
Some required course that was made super easy so the spectrum of public high school students could all pass.
quote:
From the book of Bloodsage, chapter 3, verse 16:
I just read an important, ground-breaking study on SI.com: 33% of coaches actually admitted to yelling at their athletes, and 20% even made fun of athletes who screwed up. Is that absolutely astounding, or what? How dare they?I have come to the conclusion that this study--and Wikipedia--are proof the apocolypse is nigh and our civilization is doomed.
That's not always the best method to win, though. Our coach taught us to win using discipline, teamwork, respect, and our brains. He was a tough mofo, but we respected him. There were other teams whose coaches thought if they yelled at their team loud enough and berated the bad players they'd somehow get better. During competition, we tore those stereotype teams apart like they were nothing.
edit: I suppose the idea is to be inspired by winning instead of driven by the fear losing like some pathetic beaten dog. On the same note, even if we beat a team, but didn't do our best, that was a big problem. He knew our abilities and limitations, and knew how to push them beyond what we thought was possible. If we compared ourselves against the other teams instead of oureslves, we'd put artifical limits on our ability and wouldn't know what we could do. We'd LIKE to go against people better than ourselves, becuase that's how we can learn and be inspired. diadem fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 08:24 AM.
quote:
If Bloodsage was a glacier, they'd be a fast one:
Oh, I don't know. . .maybe the fact that any idiot can edit it, and there's no expert verification of the contents? Duh. Since when were encyclopedias written by laymen, through a process of consensus?If that doesn't scare you, then my point is proven.
The very fact that anyone can edit it means it's potentially the least biased source of information in the world. The fact that you consider that a weakness is alarming.
quote:
From the book of Blindy., chapter 3, verse 16:
The very fact that anyone can edit it means it's potentially the least biased source of information in the world. The fact that you consider that a weakness is alarming.
Fallacy of the golden mean.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Captain Planet:
Oh, I don't know. . .maybe the fact that any idiot can edit it, and there's no expert verification of the contents? Duh. Since when were encyclopedias written by laymen, through a process of consensus?If that doesn't scare you, then my point is proven.
It isn't meant to be an authoritative source you go to for 100% factual, scientific information, more of a collection of broad articles on a multitude of subjects for people to browse through. I wouldn't trust it to be accurate on anything but otherwise well-documented subjects, especially concerning topics which are the subject of heated debate, but it's a nice place to go to when you just want to get a broad view of what a subject is about or quickly look up a date, location or other information very basic to people knowledgeable about that specific field but unknown to me.
Edit: Also Wikipedia does have editors who try and keep the whole thing together, it's not absolutely free for anyone to change. Mod fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 09:13 AM.
quote:
x--PvednesO-('-'Q) :
Fallacy of the golden mean.
OOOOOHHH
Fallacy burn!
quote:
At least Pvednes isn't Somthor:
Fallacy of the golden mean.
That doesn't apply here. There's a difference between saying "the middle ground between two extremes is correct" and "an article modified until there are no objections is correct"
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Blindy. gently hums:
The very fact that anyone can edit it means it's potentially the least biased source of information in the world. The fact that you consider that a weakness is alarming.
That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Accuracy is the single most important attribute of a reference source, and Wikipedia has no method to ensure it. Do you have even the faintest idea what bias is, or when it's relevant?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
That doesn't apply here. There's a difference between saying "the middle ground between two extremes is correct" and "an article modified until there are no objections is correct"
It's also an appeal to popularity.
You need to learn something, before life burns you badly: the opinions of a bunch of unqualified people mean exactly nothing on a given topic, even if they all agree.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Blindy.'s tombstone read:
That doesn't apply here. There's a difference between saying "the middle ground between two extremes is correct" and "an article modified until there are no objections is correct"
Yes, yes it does. Hypothetical example time!
Dr. Respected Geologist puts up an article on sedimentary rock strata. Rev. Dangerous Cultist then changes it to suit his crackpotted dogma of space aliens from the distant past killing everyone with a global flood in ten days. Wikiwar ensues, resulting in a neutral article about the effects of space aliens from the distant past on rock strata. Everyone gets bored, and no-one really objects. But it's about as truthful as a corrupt lawyer.
quote:
Mod startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
It isn't meant to be an authoritative source you go to for 100% factual, scientific information, more of a collection of broad articles on a multitude of subjects for people to browse through. I wouldn't trust it to be accurate on anything but otherwise well-documented subjects, especially concerning topics which are the subject of heated debate, but it's a nice place to go to when you just want to get a broad view of what a subject is about or quickly look up a date, location or other information very basic to people knowledgeable about that specific field but unknown to me.Edit: Also Wikipedia does have editors who try and keep the whole thing together, it's not absolutely free for anyone to change.
Um, that's exactly the point: it isn't the least bit reliable for looking up facts, by its very nature. It's absolutely useless, except as insight into how stupid people like Blindy think. It's an interesting sociological experiment, but cannot ever be a factual reference. So, yeah, I guess if your only question is, "Hmmmm. . .I wonder what a bunch of random unqualified people think about this topic?" it's worthwhile.
You simply can't be sure that the information comes from people knowledgeable in a specific field, and so have no way to trust the information you find. It's a waste of time as a reference.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Pvednes squealed:
On the other hand, some topics are so esoteric, only qualified people have the cojones to even try to edit it.
And the way to verify the qualifications of the person editing is. . . ? The in-place method for verifying the information prior to publishing is. . . ?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, diadem squealed:
That's not always the best method to win, though. Our coach taught us to win using discipline, teamwork, respect, and our brains. He was a tough mofo, but we respected him. There were other teams whose coaches thought if they yelled at their team loud enough and berated the bad players they'd somehow get better. During competition, we tore those stereotype teams apart like they were nothing.edit: I suppose the idea is to be inspired by winning instead of driven by the fear losing like some pathetic beaten dog. On the same note, even if we beat a team, but didn't do our best, that was a big problem. He knew our abilities and limitations, and knew how to push them beyond what we thought was possible. If we compared ourselves against the other teams instead of oureslves, we'd put artifical limits on our ability and wouldn't know what we could do. We'd LIKE to go against people better than ourselves, becuase that's how we can learn and be inspired.
What does that have to do with whether or not a coach should ever yell?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
I gotta give it to Pvednes with:
Yes, yes it does. Hypothetical example time!Dr. Respected Geologist puts up an article on sedimentary rock strata. Rev. Dangerous Cultist then changes it to suit his crackpotted dogma of space aliens from the distant past killing everyone with a global flood in ten days. Wikiwar ensues, resulting in a neutral article about the effects of space aliens from the distant past on rock strata. Everyone gets bored, and no-one really objects. But it's about as truthful as a corrupt lawyer.
I see. Find an article that's been edited a fair amount of times that contains anything remotely simular to this situation, and I'll shut up.
What would really happen is Rev. Crackpot would add his information and it would not be green-lit after review, then he would be bared from future postings on the topic.
This isn't a chalkboard where anyone can come up and write whatever they want. There is a system at work here.
I'm not even going to bother responding to Bloodsage's arguements. If I wanted to be called stupid 50 times in a minute I'd just ring up an ex-girlfriend.
quote:
Verily, Bloodsage doth proclaim:
And the way to verify the qualifications of the person editing is. . . ? The in-place method for verifying the information prior to publishing is. . . ?
None and none. Usually, however, the parts I'm refering to are plagiarized from more reliable sources.
Which means while it may be factually accurate, it's still impossible to use as a reference.
quote:
From the book of Blindy., chapter 3, verse 16:
I see. Find an article that's been edited a fair amount of times that contains anything remotely simular to this situation, and I'll shut up.What would really happen is Rev. Crackpot would add his information and it would not be green-lit after review, then he would be bared from future postings on the topic.
This isn't a chalkboard where anyone can come up and write whatever they want. There is a system at work here.
I'm not even going to bother responding to Bloodsage's arguements. If I wanted to be called stupid 50 times in a minute I'd just ring up an ex-girlfriend.
quote:
Don't feed the Pvednes:
Nutrition vs. the Atkinites
Yes, that is just chock full of un-checked crackpot theories that no one bothered to argue against, yes sir.
What are you trying to point out in that article? It contains information on what it is, how it is claimed to work, events and dates relating to the rise and fall of its popularity, a critical view from the medial community containing references, and even a section on the market effects on carb heavy foodstuffs.
Pretty much all the information one would want to have on the topic.
I'm going to let you all in on a terrible secret of Evercrest: Nobody fucking cares what two out of three people involved in that discussion have to say. And neither of them are Pved.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean - Sean = 0:
Will you people fucking shut up already? Jesus christ, you guys can turn a discussion over ice cream into a half-assed flame war.I'm going to let you all in on a terrible secret of Evercrest: Nobody fucking cares what two out of three people involved in that discussion have to say. And neither of them are Pved.
FLAMING IN A FLAME THREAD? HOLY SHIT THE FORUMS ARE GOING DOWNHILL! 
"You.. I-Why are you wearing that tinfoil hat?"
"ALIENS."
"..I'm pretty sure we.. what?"
"THEY'RE READING OUR BRAINWAVES. THEY'RE OUT THERE, PLOTTING THE DOWNFALL OF OUR SOCIETY."
" 
"
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Blindy. startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I see. Find an article that's been edited a fair amount of times that contains anything remotely simular to this situation, and I'll shut up.What would really happen is Rev. Crackpot would add his information and it would not be green-lit after review, then he would be bared from future postings on the topic.
This isn't a chalkboard where anyone can come up and write whatever they want. There is a system at work here.
I'm not even going to bother responding to Bloodsage's arguements. If I wanted to be called stupid 50 times in a minute I'd just ring up an ex-girlfriend.
Nice one, jackass! Don't say stupid shit, and you won't be called stupid.
If you knew the first thing about logic, you wouldn't say, "A bunch of people agree with it, so it must be true!" or, "Since it's something everyone can agree on, it can't be biased, and that's more important than accuracy."
So exactly where in the Wikipedia process are facts checked by qualified people in the field? What is the process by which misinformation is corrected?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Loosely translated, Bloodsage says "Kill the whales":
Nice one, jackass! Don't say stupid shit, and you won't be called stupid.If you knew the first thing about logic, you wouldn't say, "A bunch of people agree with it, so it must be true!" or, "Since it's something everyone can agree on, it can't be biased, and that's more important than accuracy."
So exactly where in the Wikipedia process are facts checked by qualified people in the field? What is the process by which misinformation is corrected?
Right after an article is submitted, it is displayed on the New Articles list. There are many humans as well as bots that roam the articles on this list (the bots are open source and approved by the community- non approved bots are blocked) which verify the content against the guidelines and add them to specific to-do lists if they are suspect.
You end up with a sizeable group of people looking at every new article and article on to-do lists to suggest changes, generally the more controversial or otherwise popular a topic is, the larger a group of editors gathers around it.
Editors are supposed to operate under the well established and community standardized guidelines of No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Verifiability. Any editing outside of these guidelines is immediately pointed out, as the discussion page of any high-traffic article will quickly prove to you.
You can read the points if you want but it basically goes like this: Don't post anything that can't be verified by a professional publication, study, or research on the matter. Don't write with an agenda or discredit any viewpoint beyond what can be verified in the research, and don't post your own theories or research on a topic. Everything is based off the idea that wikipedia brings together the summation of publisized knowledge on a topic, and leaves it at that.
