quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Blindy. gently hums:
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.
Did you even read those pages? They exactly prove my point, as these examples from the "Verification" page show:
quote:
This page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them.
This doesn't exactly inspire confidence that anyone is actually enforcing the rule. It just says, "Hey, guys, we like to do it this way, please try."
quote:
Fact checking is time consuming. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit.
Translation: there is no process to verify anything in the articles, because it's published under the honor system and consensus is the only process for curbing or correcting inaccuracies.
Additionally, the page on bias actually confirms as official policy the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.
The difference between that and a real reference work is that in a real reference, facts and accuracy are verified prior to publication, and are subject to the test of truth rather than the test of popularity.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
What keeps someone from contributing false or misleading information?
Nothing. Anyone can, at this very moment, go to almost any page and change the information to make it misleading or wrong, or write a new article that has no basis in fact. Very specific minor facts, like an exact date for a not very important historical detail, are less trustworthy since vandals sometimes change them.
However, it probably will not stay that way very long. Scores of contributors monitor the list of contributions (particularly to controversial articles), and will quickly delete nonsense or obviously wrong articles, and undo baseless edits. Many users watch Wikipedia's Recent Changes, particularly for those from anonymous users, and major articles are usually on several individuals' personal watch lists as well. If an anonymous or relatively new user changes a number or a date by a little bit, without justifying their edit, it is particularly likely to raise a red flag.
But Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is almost certainly inaccurate information in it, somewhere, which has not yet been discovered to be wrong. Therefore, if you are using Wikipedia for important research or a school project, you should always verify the information somewhere else just like you should with all sources.
So here we find that accuracy is solely in the hand of anonymous people with no particular qualifications, working on their own time and schedule without any particular process. Sounds utterly reliable to me! 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
If you had any familarity with the way open source in general works you'd realize why you're simply not getting it here.
quote:
Bloodsage:
This doesn't exactly inspire confidence that anyone is actually enforcing the rule. It just says, "Hey, guys, we like to do it this way, please try."
Just the fact that you can edit anything doesn't mean that your edit is going to make it into application. You can't just connect to Tarvold's kernal CVS, re-write some functions and upload it and expect the community to include it in the next release. It is going to be looked at, and if you've done something that doesn't make sense and benefit the project as a whole, your changes are going to be rejected. Wikipedia is handled with the same basic principals.
quote:
Bloodsage:
Translation: there is no process to verify anything in the articles, because it's published under the honor system and consensus is the only process for curbing or correcting inaccuracies.
That quote is to promote providing your own resources for your article and not expecting others to fill in the blanks, as it were; It does not nullify the guideline to write verifiable articles. If you post a new article with no resources to verify your facts it will be flagged (and as such easily identified as suspect to readers), reviewed, and probibly never be finished. They are encouraging the authors to finish their work themselves, not saying that people won't bother to check up on your submission for verifiability.
Let me say that again: Articles posted that do not follow the guidelines of verifiability will not make it.
quote:
Bloodsage:
Additionally, the page on bias actually confirms as official policy the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.
No it doesn't.
quote:
Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Guidelines:
Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. (So we frequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intent, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.
I would never claim that the initial couple of passes at any article on wikipedia is accurate or reliable, but once the content has gone though the 'blender', it is, and I'd wager more-so than any traditionally published encylopedia on the market. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 01:10 PM.
Please point to the spot where it says edits go through a verification process by qualified people before they show up on the site. Their own FAQ says anyone can insert anything, and it's up to the mysterious people who've taken it upon themselves to "watch" specific articles to catch any mistakes. And there are no qualifications to become one of these watchers, either.
And your ignorance of basic principles of logic remains as appalling as ever. Wide-open public review does not lead to accuracy; it is the very definition of the appeal to popularity fallacy. And so is the policy on bias, because it asserts openly that majority opinions should be given the most weight, and that opinions should be presented based upon the number of people who buy into them, rather than accuracy or adherence to accepted methodologies. The number of people who believe a thing to be true has nothing at all to do with whether it is true.
The only process for ensuring accuracy, according to the site itself, is the hope that if something inaccurate is posted, someone who knows better will correct it. . .although the position of "someone who knows better" is open to anyone who decides to take the initiative to change something, and there is no requirement to know anything about the subject.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's complete misunderstanding of life manifested itself when they said:
Do you have to work at being so stupid, or is it just a hobby for you?Please point to the spot where it says edits go through a verification process by qualified people before they show up on the site. Their own FAQ says anyone can insert anything, and it's up to the mysterious people who've taken it upon themselves to "watch" specific articles to catch any mistakes. And there are no qualifications to become one of these watchers, either.
And your ignorance of basic principles of logic remains as appalling as ever. Wide-open public review does not lead to accuracy; it is the very definition of the appeal to popularity fallacy. And so is the policy on bias, because it asserts openly that majority opinions should be given the most weight, and that opinions should be presented based upon the number of people who buy into them, rather than accuracy or adherence to accepted methodologies. The number of people who believe a thing to be true has nothing at all to do with whether it is true.
The only process for ensuring accuracy, according to the site itself, is the hope that if something inaccurate is posted, someone who knows better will correct it. . .although the position of "someone who knows better" is open to anyone who decides to take the initiative to change something, and there is no requirement to know anything about the subject.
You obviously will never bother to read the guidelines beyond a quick skim to find something you find objectionable, so I won't bother pointing you to them and explaining how they nullify every point in this post.
And GG on insulting me for no reason, again. 
quote:
Quoth Blindy.:
You obviously will never bother to read the guidelines beyond a quick skim to find something you find objectionable, so I won't bother pointing you to them and explaining how they nullify every point in this post.And GG on insulting me for no reason, again.
I read them quite thoroughly, and even quoted their FAQ to educators that confirms everything I've said.
So, exactly where is this objective process to ensure accuracy whereby qualified people guarantee accurate information through a process in accordance with scholarly norms prior to publication? Everything about the site confirms that it's up to the readers to beware the accuracy, which defeats the entire purpose of a reference source of that type.
As usual, you're arguing based on nothing more than your feelings and naive belief that if a bunch of people say the same thing, it must be true. Which is stupid. "Oh, no--he insulted me! I shall therefore cry and ignore the rest of the argument because I'm not smart enough to recognize its validity." 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Captain Planet:
Wrong.If you had any familarity with the way open source in general works you'd realize why you're simply not getting it here.
If you had any familarity with the way information sources in general work you'd realize why you're simply not getting it here.
Popular opinion does not necessarily equal fact, and the only thing Wikipedia goes by is popular opinion. What do you not understand?
quote:
If I had a nickle for every time Ruvyen said:
If you had any familarity with the way information sources in general work you'd realize why you're simply not getting it here.Popular opinion does not necessarily equal fact, and the only thing Wikipedia goes by is popular opinion. What do you not understand?
Except Wikipedia does not go by popular opinion, it goes off the total sumation of publically available resources, both textual and factual, on a topic.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Blindy. gently hums:
Except Wikipedia does not go by popular opinion, it goes off the total sumation of publically available resources, both textual and factual, on a topic.
Bullshit. It goes by whatever anyone posts, as edited by other random people until no one has any further problem with it. That's the very definition of consensus opinion. Which, by the way, invokes a whole host of logical fallacies, several of which have already been mentioned.
The FAQ even points out that anyone can post anything and the only check on the process is other anonymous people who edit back. It is most definitely not a summation of sources widely accepted in their fields. Some articles may turn out that way, but it is in spite of the process and not because of it.
Why do you always argue hardest when you're completely wrong?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Blindy. stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Except Wikipedia does not go by popular opinion, it goes off the total sumation of publically available resources, both textual and factual, on a topic.
No, it doesn't.
By Wikipedia's own admission, the articles are reviewed by random people in the community. Who are these people and what are their credentials? We don't know. It's all too easy for someone who doesn't like what an article says to change it to say what they want it to, and if no one catches it or everyone else agrees with it, it goes through. That's popular opinion, not necessarily fact.
Also, your Linux analogy is horrible. This is an information source we're talking about, not an OS. But hey, while we're on that analogy: You want to know why Windows is a far better-known and more widely-used OS than Linux?
Microsoft is a company made of expert programmers that make software for a living. Since they're making money off what they do, it needs to be high-quality and as close to flawless as they can possibly get it. This isn't to say that Windows XP is the perfect OS and that MS can do no wrong, but MS is made up of experts who know what they're doing.
Linux is an open-source OS, and thus is open to everyone for modification. You don't need a PhD in Computer Science to make your own distribution, and those reviewing your changes also don't need PhDs in Computer Science to give them either the green or red light. I'm sure a few people in the Linux community know what they're doing, but what guarantee do you have of that? What guarantee do you have that that distro you just downloaded isn't really just an electronic abortion shoddily programmed by a thirteen-year-old? You don't have shit.
quote:
I bet you never expected Bloodsage to say:
Bullshit. It goes by whatever anyone posts, as edited by other random people until no one has any further problem with it. That's the very definition of consensus opinion. Which, by the way, invokes a whole host of logical fallacies, several of which have already been mentioned.The FAQ even points out that anyone can post anything and the only check on the process is other anonymous people who edit back. It is most definitely not a summation of sources widely accepted in their fields. Some articles may turn out that way, but it is in spite of the process and not because of it.
Why do you always argue hardest when you're completely wrong?
Do you realize that the FAQ page itself is a document concieved of this "highly irreliable method chock full of logical fallicies"? By it's very nature, the wiki approach covers all bases, and that includes self doubt. It mentions that it is possible for an article to be factually incorrect because it would be socially responcible not to, but that does not mean that all articles should then be considered factually suspect, which is the extent to which you appear to be taking this point.
Furthermore the appeal to popularity faliacy assumes a statement of truth or at least a drawn conclusion, neither of which are permitted in the guidelines. Articles which go beyond the statement of facts are also flagged. You seem to think Wikipedia is used for the publication of opinion pieces, where it is not. Sure it's possible that someone submits and opinion piece, but those are taken down reliably.
And personally, I don't get the feeling that you have anywhere near enough experience with Wikipedia to make the kind of generalizations you're making. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 03:09 PM.
quote:
I bet Ruvyen's Mother is proud:
No, it doesn't.By Wikipedia's own admission, the articles are reviewed by random people in the community. Who are these people and what are their credentials? We don't know. It's all too easy for someone who doesn't like what an article says to change it to say what they want it to, and if no one catches it or everyone else agrees with it, it goes through. That's popular opinion, not necessarily fact.
Also, your Linux analogy is horrible. This is an information source we're talking about, not an OS. But hey, while we're on that analogy: You want to know why Windows is a far better-known and more widely-used OS than Linux?
Microsoft is a company made of expert programmers that make software for a living. Since they're making money off what they do, it needs to be high-quality and as close to flawless as they can possibly get it. This isn't to say that Windows XP is the perfect OS and that MS can do no wrong, but MS is made up of experts who know what they're doing.
Linux is an open-source OS, and thus is open to everyone for modification. You don't need a PhD in Computer Science to make your own distribution, and those reviewing your changes also don't need PhDs in Computer Science to give them either the green or red light. I'm sure a few people in the Linux community know what they're doing, but what guarantee do you have of that? What guarantee do you have that that distro you just downloaded isn't really just an electronic abortion shoddily programmed by a thirteen-year-old? You don't have shit.
Your outstanding ability to add absolutely nothing to a debate astounds me. Read the fucking thread.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
Do you realize that the FAQ page itself is a document concieved of this "highly irreliable method chock full of logical fallicies"? By it's very nature, the wiki approach covers all bases, and that includes self doubt. It mentions that it is possible for an article to be factually incorrect because it would be socially responcible not to, but that does not mean that all articles should then be considered factually suspect, which is the extent to which you appear to be taking this point.Furthermore the appeal to popularity faliacy assumes a statement of truth or at least a drawn conclusion, neither of which are permitted in the guidelines. Articles which go beyond the statement of facts are also flagged. You seem to think Wikipedia is used for the publication of opinion pieces, where it is not. Sure it's possible that someone submits and opinion piece, but those are taken down reliably.
And personally, I don't get the feeling that you have anywhere near enough experience with Wikipedia to make the kind of generalizations you're making.
Do you know the first thing about logic? "They just say their stuff may be inaccurate in order to be polite; that doesn't mean you can't trust it," is almost as utterly stupid as your first post.
And Jeebus H. Christ, the conclusion you claim isn't present is that the information in the articles is reliable. It is your claim, and the claim by those who run the site, that reliability and accuracy are achieved solely by open review where everyone's opinions on the subject count equally, and everyone is entitled to change anything they don't agree with. That process cannot result in a trustworthy product, even on so minor a thing as a name or date. It says right up front that anyone can correct anything, and it's up to the viewing public to correct any errors. . .and, worse, all of this is done post-publication and without a timeline.
Nice use of the ad hominem fallacy, though, with your admission that although you can't counter any of the actual arguments, they must be wrong because you don't think I have enough experience with the site. That right there is where you keep screwing up; you've no idea what critical thinking is, and wouldn't recognize logic if it bitchslapped you.
Show us the process that guarantees accurate information in any given article at any given time. If you can't do that, the only logical conclusion is that the reference is unreliable.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Blindy.:
Do you realize that the FAQ page itself is a document concieved of this "highly irreliable method chock full of logical fallicies"? By it's very nature, the wiki approach covers all bases, and that includes self doubt. It mentions that it is possible for an article to be factually incorrect because it would be socially responcible not to, but that does not mean that all articles should then be considered factually suspect, which is the extent to which you appear to be taking this point.
Once again, if you knew the slightest thing about what's a reliable information source and what isn't, you'd realise you're completely wrong. Yes, if some articles could be wrong, that does mean that all the articles are suspect. That someone could change even Wikipedia's FAQ page to "I LIKE HORNY MONKEY PENIZ LOL LOL LOL", and it would stay that way if the community wants it to, says that the articles are based off popular opinion and not fact. The articles say what the community wants them to say. What the community wants to say isn't necessarily fact.
In a journal, articles take a long time to write. The research is done by experts in the field, and each article goes through a lengthy process of review by other experts in the field. Only when an article is found by all of these experts to be 100% correct and factual is it used in the journal. The people that are published in the journal, as well as the reviewers, are putting their credibility on the line with each article published. If the article is found to be wrong on something, they lose credibility.
Encyclopedia articles are similar. The facts in an encyclopedia are checked by many experts in their respected fields. If something happens to be incorrect, it's either changed or not published at all in the encyclopedia. The authors of the encyclopedia are also putting their credibility on the line. What they publish pretty much has to be true.
With Wikipedia, anyone that can use the Internet can make articles, and anyone that can use the Internet can review articles. If someone doesn't like what an article says, it's all too easy to raise a flag. If the rest of the community agrees that something about the article should be changed, it gets changed. Note that what the community thinks is not necessarily fact. Plus, since articles can be added and editted anonymously, how can anyone lose credibility for wrong articles or poor editting? They can't. Now, have you finally got that through your thick skull? Can we move on?
quote:
Furthermore the appeal to popularity faliacy assumes a statement of truth or at least a drawn conclusion, neither of which are permitted in the guidelines. Articles which go beyond the statement of facts are also flagged. You seem to think Wikipedia is used for the publication of opinion pieces, where it is not. Sure it's possible that someone submits and opinion piece, but those are taken down reliably.
First off, what real facts are can be completely different from what the community accepts as fact. Let's assume that the entire Wikipedia community is both insane and fundamentalist Christian. An atheist comes along, and sees all of these articles relating to God and such. So, this atheist makes an unbiased, 100% factual article on the concept of atheism.
Now, the community really doesn't like that article. So, someone changes it to say all kinds of shit, such as "Atheists are of SATAN and will BURN IN HELL FOR THEIR SINS". The rest of the community agrees with this edit, so it goes through.
Where's the facts about atheism? Gone. Deleted by a community that didn't agree with them, and replaced with their own crazy bullshit.
NOTE: I have nothing against Christianity as a whole.
quote:
And personally, I don't get the feeling that you have anywhere near enough experience with Wikipedia to make the kind of generalizations you're making.
But 'Sage and I obviously have far more experience than you in identifying credible sources of information.
ON THE OTHER HAND...I think that's a gross, criminal exception. I certainly don't think there should be a zero-tolerance policy regarding coaches yelling or poking fun at players. If it's unnecessarily abusive, maybe, but I know that the other coaches when I was in high school were generally fun guys who yes, took their respective sports seriously, but also understood that demeaning, degrading, and destroying the morale of their players was not the way to achieve success.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about John Romero:
Your outstanding ability to add absolutely nothing to a debate astounds me. Read the fucking thread.
I just thought that, since you're obviously too stupid to grasp the concepts of basic critical thinking and logic, maybe if enough people repeat the same thing, you'll simply accept it as fact.
quote:
When Bloodsage says stuff like this, it proves there isn't a god:
Do you know the first thing about logic? "They just say their stuff may be inaccurate in order to be polite; that doesn't mean you can't trust it," is almost as utterly stupid as your first post.And Jeebus H. Christ, the conclusion you claim isn't present is that the information in the articles is reliable. It is your claim, and the claim by those who run the site, that reliability and accuracy are achieved solely by open review where everyone's opinions on the subject count equally, and everyone is entitled to change anything they don't agree with. That process cannot result in a trustworthy product, even on so minor a thing as a name or date. It says right up front that anyone can correct anything, and it's up to the viewing public to correct any errors. . .and, worse, all of this is done post-publication and without a timeline.
Nice use of the ad hominem fallacy, though, with your admission that although you can't counter any of the actual arguments, they must be wrong because you don't think I have enough experience with the site. That right there is where you keep screwing up; you've no idea what critical thinking is, and wouldn't recognize logic if it bitchslapped you.
Show us the process that guarantees accurate information in any given article at any given time. If you can't do that, the only logical conclusion is that the reference is unreliable.
OK. The process by which Wikipedia articles are rendered reliable.
1) Someone writes an article.
2) Someone looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
3) Someone else looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
4) Something new happens and the article is revised to reflect this.
5) Someone looks new article and suggests or edits some changes.
--- Ad infinium until no one in the world can spot any factual errors.
The Process by which a traditional encyclopedia article is rendered reliable.
1) Someone writes an article.
2) Someone looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
3) Someone else looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
4) Someone calls it reliable and it's published, or else time runs out and they publish whatever they have.
5) Something new happens and the article needs to be updated. Oops, now we're fucked.
6) Someone spots a factual error in the article and it needs to be updated. Oops, now we're fucked.
And I'm ad hominiming you because you honestly don't sound like you've ever used wikipedia for anything. You seem to think all the articles are based on popular opinion, uncited sources, written by joe fuckhead, and managed by some random people on the internet with nothing better to do than push their agenda, and nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that an unmanaged wiki could logically end up like that, Wikipedia is managed. There are rules, guidelines, and full time employees paid by the wikimedia foundation that enforce them and keep the project running.
And for the last time: OPINIONS ARE NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT. They are edited out, specifically discouraged, and to the extent that is possible, not permited in articles. Blindy fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 03:40 PM.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Robocop:
On the topic of coaches yelling at people...Not sure. I think that there are coaches out there who do a lot of harm. My wrestling coach in high school didn't officially in front of other students encourage us to do anything against the accepted rules to drop weight fast, but unofficially he had 135 pound guys dropping to the 112 weight class by wearing trash bags under their clothes and doing exercise. One kid I was on the varsity team with essentially almost fried his nervous system doing that crap. Had a seizure and was in a coma for two days. No water in his system, basically.ON THE OTHER HAND...I think that's a gross, criminal exception. I certainly don't think there should be a zero-tolerance policy regarding coaches yelling or poking fun at players. If it's unnecessarily abusive, maybe, but I know that the other coaches when I was in high school were generally fun guys who yes, took their respective sports seriously, but also understood that demeaning, degrading, and destroying the morale of their players was not the way to achieve success.
Wrestling in it's current form is retarted. You thin that he is the exception but I would disagree. If you want to be competitive in wrestling you have to do that. But that is entirely off the subject of choaches using agressive encouraging techniques and more the stupidity of a particular sport.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Robocop:
Wrestling in it's current form is retarted. You thin that he is the exception but I would disagree. If you want to be competitive in wrestling you have to do that. But that is entirely off the subject of choaches using agressive encouraging techniques and more the stupidity of a particular sport.
Pop Tart. Re-Tart? FASCINATING!
I dunno. I liked wrestling in high school. It was physical, I was fairly good at it (made Varsity) and it would have been fun were it not for my coach.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
OK. The process by which Wikipedia articles are rendered reliable.1) Someone writes an article.
2) Someone looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
3) Someone else looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
4) Something new happens and the article is revised to reflect this.
5) Someone looks new article and suggests or edits some changes.
--- Ad infinium until no one in the world can spot any factual errors.The Process by which a traditional encyclopedia article is rendered reliable.
1) Someone writes an article.
2) Someone looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
3) Someone else looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
4) Someone called reliable and published, or else time runs out and they publish whatever they have.
5) Something new happens and the article needs to be updated. Oops, now we're fucked.
6) Someone spots a factual error in the article and it needs to be updated. Oops, now we're fucked.And I'm ad hominiming you because you honestly don't sound like you've ever used wikipedia for anything. You seem to think all the articles are based on popular opinion, uncited sources, written by joe fuckhead, and managed by some random people on the internet with nothing better to do than push their agenda, and nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that an unmanaged wiki could logically end up like that, Wikipedia is managed. There are rules, guidelines, and full time employees paid by the wikimedia foundation that enforce them and keep the project running.
And for the last time: OPINIONS ARE NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT. They are edited out, specifically discouraged, and to the extent that is possible, not permited in articles.
God, you're stupid, Blindy.
Your analogy doesn't work (another logical fallacy, by the way), because there is an important, material difference between the situations: in the second case, everyone involved in the process is qualified to do what he is doing; in the first case, any random idiot is allowed--nay, encouraged--to edit anything he thinks is wrong.
Further, your first example is the very definition of appeal to popularity, because your assertion is that because a group of random people accept something as fact, it must be true. Not only is there no process by which only people qualified to correct a given topic are allowed access, but all of the editing is done post production, which guarantees that at any given moment no article is reliable.
Only a truly stupid person would use wikipedia as a reference in any scholarly endeavor. Its value is solely as a socialogical experiment.
And your using ad hominem arguements. . .because you think they actually apply? Hate to break it to you, dipshit, but the reason they are fallacies is precisely because they can never be used to prove a point. If you think I'm wrong, you have to address the arguments, but so far your only assertion is that if enough random, unqualified people agree on something, then it must be true. Which, of course, is the definition of an appeal to popularity and therefore not a legitimate argument.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about pies:
Pop Tart. Re-Tart? FASCINATING!I dunno. I liked wrestling in high school. It was physical, I was fairly good at it (made Varsity) and it would have been fun were it not for my coach.
I'm not saying that the sport as a whole is bad. I think that it is one of the best physical contests out there. The behavior that is required to be competitive on a state or national level is fairly absurd though.
But hell, let's not let that get in the way of an old fashioned Evercrest bitchfest. 
It's not something people hear about.
Hilarious thread.
quote:
Blindy had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
OK. The process by which Wikipedia articles are rendered reliable.1) Someone writes an article.
2) Someone looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
3) Someone else looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
4) Something new happens and the article is revised to reflect this.
5) Someone looks new article and suggests or edits some changes.
--- Ad infinium until no one in the world can spot any factual errors.
And just who are these "someones" who are writing and editting these articles?
Exactly, we don't have a fucking clue. We don't know if they're qualified to say what they're saying. Same thing with the editors. Where are the PhDs? We don't know. Is there even a single person with even a BA or BSc working for Wikipedia? We don't know. All we know is that the writers and editors are Internet nobodies who have nothing better to do.
Critical Thinking Lesson 1: Who the information is coming from is just as important as the information itself.
quote:
The Process by which a traditional encyclopedia article is rendered reliable.
1) Someone writes an article.
2) Someone looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
3) Someone else looks at article and suggests or edits some changes.
4) Someone called reliable and published, or else time runs out and they publish whatever they have.
5) Something new happens and the article needs to be updated. Oops, now we're fucked.
6) Someone spots a factual error in the article and it needs to be updated. Oops, now we're fucked.
The difference between encyclopedias and Wikipedia is, in a real encyclopedia, facts are constantly checked with known experts in their respective fields, not Internet nobodies. It is true that sometimes false information gets in, but far, far, far more often than not, the information in an encyclopedia is completely factual. The authors' credibility depends on it, and in academia, credibility is extremely important. But, I can tell by your lack of critical thinking skills that you either never went past high school, or are completely failing college, so I guess you wouldn't know that.
quote:
And I'm ad hominiming you because you honestly don't sound like you've ever used wikipedia for anything. You seem to think all the articles are based on popular opinion, uncited sources, written by joe fuckhead, and managed by some random people on the internet with nothing better to do than push their agenda, and nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that an unmanaged wiki could logically end up like that, Wikipedia is managed. There are rules, guidelines, and full time employees paid by the wikimedia foundation that enforce them and keep the project running.
Actually, we have at least two things right:
1. The articles are written by Joe Fuckhead. By your and Wikipedia's own admission, anyone can write and edit articles. Since people can do it anonymously, there's no guarantee that person knows what they're talking about.
2. They are managed by some random people on the Internet, again by your and Wikipedia's own admission. Admittedly, whether or not these random people even have an agenda to push remains unknown.
I'd say that's enough to suspect Wikipedia as an uncredible source.
Critical Thinking Lesson 2: You can find scholarly information on the Internet, but most of the stuff on here is either lies or bullshit. Make sure there's some guarantee of credibility before accepting the information on an Internet site as fact.
quote:
And for the last time: OPINIONS ARE NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT. They are edited out, specifically discouraged, and to the extent that is possible, not permited in articles.
But the facts of the articles can be twisted to reflect the community's opinion of a topic. So yes, opinions are what Wikipedia is about, they just try to present these opinions as fact.
Which happens to be every one of you dumbfucks.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Sean squealed:
I'm a little confused as to why we're making broad assumptions that everyone who bothers to edit a Wikipedia entry is some mouthbreathing neanderthal. Those people don't even know the fucking thing exists, because they're too busy playing the latest stolen flash game on Ebaum's world.But hell, let's not let that get in the way of an old fashioned Evercrest bitchfest.
That's almost as stupid as what Blindy's arguing. The point is not that everyone who edits the pages is an idiot, but that there is no process to prevent it, or to ensure the accuracy of an article before publication. Which makes the reference exactly as reliable as going to the nearest busy street and taking a poll.
Honestly, if you don't understand basic logic, why are you inserting yourself into the discussion. Although it pretty much defines what's wrong with Wikipedia, and why I pointed to it as a bad sign: there are many stupid people in the world who believe that consensus, rather than expertise, leads to accuracy. Who needs qualifications when you can have a rabble?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Although it pretty much defines what's wrong with Wikipedia, and why I pointed to it as a bad sign: there are many stupid people in the world who believe that consensus, rather than expertise, leads to accuracy. Who needs qualifications when you can have a rabble?
So because people are idiots, something is wrong with Wikipedia?
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Pirotess:
So because people are idiots, something is wrong with Wikipedia?
Yeah, that's pretty much the entire point right there.
[EDIT- And Sean: That list actually does give Wikipedia a little more credibility, but it doesn't stop idiots from making random articles or edits. Especially bad is that someone can edit that list as easily as any other wiki page, although I suppose the rest of them would probably catch it. Thanks for the link, btw.] Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 04:06 PM.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Sean gently hums:
And, just for the uninformed.Which happens to be every one of you dumbfucks.
First, very few of those names actually listed degrees--most just claimed expertise. Second, very few of those degrees were advanced. Third, there is no process that ensures that they only correct articles in their fields. Fourth, there is no requirement to have any expertise in a field in order to create or edit an article on a given subject.
But thanks for proving the point that there are absolutely no connections between a person's qualifications and the areas they can edit.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Ruvyen probably says this to all the girls:
Yeah, that's pretty much the entire point right there.
Which makes zero sense. Just because people are not using a website correctly, does not mean there's a problem with the website.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Reynar gently hums:
So because people are idiots, something is wrong with Wikipedia?
Since the source of all its information is random people, what do you think is the proper conclusion?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Reynar squealed:
Which makes zero sense. Just because people are not using a website correctly, does not mean there's a problem with the website.
So, just because anyone can post anything without restriction is not a reason to be wary of the information on a given web site? Just because completely random people are publishing information with no process other than consensus amongst other random people to ensure accuracy or validity are publishing a reference work, that's no reason to distrust it?
WTFO?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Since the source of all its information is random people, what do you think is the proper conclusion?
Who cares about the source? Since when do we fault the websites for when people do dumb things?
The problem isn't Wikipedia, it's people thinking that Wikipedia is an accurate source of information.
Lots of stuff is free on the Internet, but is it good? Usually not.
Anyone suckered in by it deserves what they get.
quote:
Bloodsage needs to learn to type:
God, you're stupid, Blindy.Your analogy doesn't work (another logical fallacy, by the way), because there is an important, material difference between the situations: in the second case, everyone involved in the process is qualified to do what he is doing; in the first case, any random idiot is allowed--nay, encouraged--to edit anything he thinks is wrong.
You're right, and without some central guidance the whole project could end up pretty shitty. But wikipedia has central guidance. And if you're just editing something because you think it's wrong, and you don't have some proof, you're not going to get your edits though.
quote:
Further, your first example is the very definition of appeal to popularity, because your assertion is that because a group of random people accept something as fact, it must be true. Not only is there no process by which only people qualified to correct a given topic are allowed access, but all of the editing is done post production, which guarantees that at any given moment no article is reliable.
You're right, there is no guarantee that an article is 100% unquestionably accurate at any given time. But you have no such guarantee with a written encyclopedia either. Mistakes are made, facts are left out, and revisons are issued all the fucking time.
However, Wikipedia at least has links to all the sources from which the facts in the article were cited, allowing the reader to double check the accuracy. I don't think I've seen an encyclopedia go that far.
quote:
Only a truly stupid person would use wikipedia as a reference in any scholarly endeavor. Its value is solely as a socialogical experiment.
But we're not discussing if Wikipedia is usable for a scholarly paper, we're discussing if Wikipedia is proof the apocolypse is nigh and our civilization is doomed.
quote:
And your using ad hominem arguements. . .because you think they actually apply? Hate to break it to you, dipshit, but the reason they are fallacies is precisely because they can never be used to prove a point. If you think I'm wrong, you have to address the arguments, but so far your only assertion is that if enough random, unqualified people agree on something, then it must be true. Which, of course, is the definition of an appeal to popularity and therefore not a legitimate argument.
I'm addressing your arguments. Your arguments really look like you've had a very small amount of experience with Wikipedia. I think that if you spent some more time on the site and maybe edited a few articles, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to get me to explain to you how the editoral process works on the site, nor making many of the generalizations you're making.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Snugglits absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I would say you're missing the point of wikipedia entirely. Most people don't treat it as a reference for projects but instead a method to get a rough idea of the history of something or how something works.
Which is every bit as bad, because all it does is perpetuate misinformation among people too stupid to think critically. It's completely unreliable information marketed as knowledge to people who don't know any better or, worse, embrace the fallacy that consensus leads to truth.
There is no good use of Wikipedia as a reference.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
Which is every bit as bad, because all it does is perpetuate misinformation among people too stupid to think critically. It's completely unreliable information marketed as knowledge to people who don't know any better or, worse, embrace the fallacy that consensus leads to truth.There is no good use of Wikipedia as a reference.
As a factual source, wikipedia is almost always right on the money. It's only on neutral/bias issues that it loses its value. And again, I think the nature of it is obvious to anyone who uses it.
