quote:
Blindy. stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
How is my first responce in anyway a reflexive defense?I agree that Wikipedia failed to provide accurate information and then speculated as to a reason why. I didn't make excuses for it, nor did I attempt to brush over the fact that the information was inaccurate.
When the hell did this happen? Have you been reading the same thread we have? The whole time, you were arguing that Wikipedia is the least biased information source available (which I also personally doubt it is), so everything it says must be true. Newsflash: Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information on a worldwide network made up of general bullshit, Flash animations, eBaum's World fans, and unreliable sources of information. The Internet in general is a very bad place to go for any kind of info.
quote:
Of course you use the opertunity to knee jerk and repeat your unflinching arguement, just incase no one read you the first 5,000 times you typed it in the thread using the exact same words, but not until you take a moment to use isolated innocent to generalize the entire website as untrustworthy.I hear Honda's cars break down every now and then too.
Again, Wikipedia is on the Internet. It's completely anonymous. You don't know who's writing what. How do you know they're qualified to say what they're saying? Of course the entire website is untrustworthy. Every website is.
I counter your Honda analogy with my (already used) Microsoft/Linux analogy.
Microsoft programs software professionally, so they have to know what they're doing. You're giving them your hard-earned money for that, so their software must be trustworthy. If Windows XP pwns your laptop, and that laptop should have been able to handle WinXP, that's bad for Microsoft. If their OS messes enough people's stuff up, no one will buy their software and they'll go out of business.
Linux? There are professionally-made, commercial distributions, but for the most part, Linux is free. You don't pay people to create and update the software, it's done by a community on the Internet. Who are these programmers and how do you know that they know what they're doing? You don't. If that distro you just downloaded for dual-booting with XP completely destroys all data on your hard drive prior to install, installs itself, then wipes your drive again, who are you going to complain to? How can the Linux community stop people from uploading their shoddily-programmed distros to the Internet? They can't. What guarantee of quality does the Linux community have for their software? Well, you get what you pay for, and since you aren't paying for anything, you're fortunate to get a good OS out of the deal at all. Is Linux awesome? Yes. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's unreliable. If it screws things up, it's your fault for trusting the unknown programmers too much.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy. absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
How is my first responce in anyway a reflexive defense?I agree that Wikipedia failed to provide accurate information and then speculated as to a reason why. I didn't make excuses for it, nor did I attempt to brush over the fact that the information was inaccurate.
Of course you use the opertunity to knee jerk and repeat your unflinching arguement, just incase no one read you the first 5,000 times you typed it in the thread using the exact same words, but not until you take a moment to use isolated innocent to generalize the entire website as untrustworthy.
I hear Honda's cars break down every now and then too.
You still fail at the ability to think, eh?
The fact is you did make an excuse, citing obscurity as the reason the article was inaccurate.
Not only that, it's obvious you have no idea how basic logic works. If my point is the fact that Wikipedia has no method to ensure accuracy in its articles, any grossly inaccurate article supports my point quite nicely. Further, since your point has been that it does, indeed, have working controls to ensure accurate information, any grossly inaccurate article tubes your entire case. The fact remains that there is no process in place that can ensure accuracy of information, and there is no way to tell which information is accurate and which is not, invalidating the entire point of having a reference work.
Finally, simply because you've recently claimed to be an authority on English usage, I've taken the liberty of highlighting your mistakes in the above post. There are other mistakes, like missing words and commas, but those are the truly bad ones.
Edit: color. Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 12-06-2005 at 02:25 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's got nothing.You still fail at the ability to think, eh?
The fact is you did make an excuse, citing obscurity as the reason the article was inaccurate.
Not only that, it's obvious you have no idea how basic logic works. If my point is the fact that Wikipedia has no method to ensure accuracy in its articles, any grossly inaccurate article supports my point quite nicely. Further, since your point has been that it does, indeed, have working controls to ensure accurate information, any grossly inaccurate article tubes your entire case. The fact remains that there is no process in place that can ensure accuracy of information, and there is no way to tell which information is accurate and which is not, invalidating the entire point of having a reference work.
Finally, simply because you've recently claimed to be an authority on English usage, I've taken the liberty of highlighting your mistakes in the above post. There are other mistakes, like missing words and commas, but those are the truly bad ones.
Edit: color.
Ignoring the pointless (BUT HILARIOUS OMG) attack, I feel we should clarify something. I never claimed it should be used as a reference. You can go back and look. I'll wait.
Are you really claiming that a single flaw invalidates the claim that there is a system at work for the purpose of eliminating inaccuracies?
I don't think I've ever made the claim that Wikipedia is 100% accurate, all the time, from the second an article is posted to the end of the world.
I have, however, made the claim that there isn't a reason to prejudicially believe that all information on Wikipedia is inaccurate.
Which means, unless I'm mistaken, that it could be accurate, or it could not be, but you shouldn't assume either way. Given the fact that an article posted that follows the guidelines, as a good many of them do, will have a complete resource section that permits you to find out for yourself where this information is comming from and make your on decision on if it's trust worthy or not, I tend to see it as a good source of quick information and a starting point when I want to find out about something.
I really want to resolve this disagreement, so let me try to summarize.
You've got several logical and understandable concerns. Forgive me for paraphrasing but correct me if I misunderstood.
1) No one forces you to follow the guidelines.
- There are a number of paid administrators and around 2,000 administrative volunteers that look at recently updated articles to see if they follow the guidelines.
They are not necessarily subject matter experts, however, so if there are no readily apparent factual flaws in the articles that are in disagreement with resource links, the error could be left in place.
2) Anyone could vandalize the article at any time.
- But a version history is saved and there are many bots that crawl around looking for clear signs of intentional mis-information, in addition to the previously mentioned administrative task force
3) The only way anything ever gets fixed is in the rare chance that someone sees it and knows it is incorrect.
- You're absolutely right, I just don't think it's as rare of a chance as you make it out to be given the systems they have in place.
4) There is no check in place to make sure you are a subject matter expert before you write an article on a subject.
- The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize information that is publicly available in other (hopefully trustworthy) places on the Internet. There are guidelines specifically stating that you should not make claims that can not be substantiated by resource links, and you should not post original research on Wikipedia. The guidelines are designed in this fashion to get around the need to have a subject matter expert on every article. If you're just posting what you've found, then the only expertise you require is the ability to accurately summarize the material. And most people can write a book report. Can all people? No. Mistakes will be made, things will be misread, and until an administrator or a peer checks your article against your sources, your erronous article is published.
I just want to point out that it's not as rare of an occurance for an article to be double checked as you seem to be under the impression that it is. If you post an article of any significance or interest, chances are it will be hit in short order. On the other hand if you post an article on some insignificant and obscure topic, such as the Assistant to the Attorney General in 1961, it might be a while.
But your claim, Sir Bloodsage, is that "nothing in Wikipedia can be trusted."
Now, I interpret this as you saying "There is not an article in Wikipedia that is trustworthy." Correct me if I'm wrong, since apparently having a Masters and taking some graduate level english classes entitles you to make the English requirement to qualify your generalities your own personal bitch, but this strikes me as an absolute statement.
Is it an absolute statement? Are you really arguing that there isn't a single article in Wikipedia which provides accurate information? Blindy. fucked around with this message on 12-06-2005 at 03:49 PM.
quote:
Blindy.'s account was hax0red to write:
Ignoring the pointless (BUT HILARIOUS OMG) attack, I feel we should clarify something. I never claimed it should be used as a reference. You can go back and look. I'll wait.Are you really claiming that a single flaw invalidates the claim that there is a system at work for the purpose of eliminating inaccuracies?
When that one flaw is the size of the Universe itself, then yeah, that one flaw can really tear shit up. Wikipedia's flaw is that not only do they not require any expertise in subject areas to create or edit articles, but it being on the Internet, it's completely anonymous. Not to mention other problems about the Internet:
Someone posts a large string of massively stupid articles, and vandalises other, highly accurate articles. They're IP-banned from Wikipedia, right? Of course. So, they get on a proxy server, and start doing it again under a different IP. HURR!@ The paid admins and bots can take care of this activity as it happens, but what can they do about the proxy servers? How can they completely prevent this behaviour from Internet trolls? They can't.
quote:
I don't think I've ever made the claim that Wikipedia is 100% accurate, all the time, from the second an article is posted to the end of the world.I have, however, made the claim that there isn't a reason to prejudicially believe that all information on Wikipedia is inaccurate.
1. It's on the Internet.
2. The Internet is for porn.
3. No expertise is required.
4. It's completely anonymous.
5. Correctness of articles is determined by consensus of anonymous people in the community, not evaluation of facts by experts in the field.
6. Surprise surprise, those anonymous Internet trolls can be (and often are) completely wrong on a variety of subjects, including but not limited to how to breathe properly.
7. A whole crapload of these stupid Internet trolls agreeing that Jesus will come in 2007 with a gigantic combat robot to fight Satan and his hordes of awesome guitar demons = consensus.
It doesn't matter how many articles on Wikipedia are accurate. Lots of them are, but that isn't our point. Again, have you been reading the same thread we have? We're arguing against Wikipedia's reliability, not its accuracy. There is no guarantee that, at any point, that article you're reading is accurate to any degree.
quote:
Which means, unless I'm mistaken, that it could be accurate, or it could not be, but you shouldn't assume either way. Given the fact that an article posted that follows the guidelines, as a good many of them do, will have a complete resource section that permits you to find out for yourself where this information is comming from and make your on decision on if it's trust worthy or not, I tend to see it as a good source of quick information and a starting point when I want to find out about something.
Critical Thinking Lesson #3: Critical thinking begins with the assumption that what you're reading has absolutely no basis in truth whatsoever. Then, it isn't your job to find the truth in his words, but rather the writer's job to convince you that there is truth in his words.
So, yes, when looking for factual information, you should assume at first that everything you find, especially on something as unreliable and anonymous as the Internet, is complete and total bullshit.
Although yes, you're correct that it is a good source for quick information. For example, a while back I was looking stuff up on Wikipedia, and came across an article on samurai. I don't really need to know about samurai, but it was interesting nonetheless. I wouldn't really use it as a starting point, though. A better one might be a topic search on, say, Google Scholar. I haven't used Google Scholar much myself, though.
quote:
I really want to resolve this disagreement, so let me try to summarize.You've got several logical and understandable concerns. Forgive me for paraphrasing but correct me if I misunderstood.
1) No one forces you to follow the guidelines.
- There are a number of paid administrators and around 2,000 administrative volunteers that look at recently updated articles to see if they follow the guidelines.
A guideline is not the same thing as a rule. Rules are laws of a community, and are not flexible. The Evercrest rules, for example. You follow those or you get banned. Wikipedia's guidelines are nowhere near as rigid as rules. All they're saying with them is "Hey guys, we think stuff should be done in this way, please try". Something can come along that breaks all of those guidelines and yet still belongs on Wikipedia.
In addition, rules and laws are often not changed unless:
1. The wording of the rule, or perhaps combination with another rule or rules, leads to an unforseen loophole that people exploit. We see this shit all the time in games: The programmers make their game a certain way (the rules), and fail to anticipate what the players will do ('sploitz). So, instead of going on a banfest, the game is changed (rewording or removing rules).
2. The rule or law is found to be amazingly stupid or unjust.
Guidelines are even more flexible in how they can be changed: They go by suggestion and democracy. Wikipedia's guidelines page even allows anyone to come in and edit those guidelines in real-time, which someone even did in an attempt to shift a pissing match in his favour ('Sage's link). How reliable are these guidelines, again?
quote:
They are not necessarily subject matter experts, however, so if there are no readily apparent factual flaws in the articles that are in disagreement with resource links, the error could be left in place.
And now you see why it's an unreliable source of information. Experts make far fewer mistakes in their field than laymen.
quote:
2) Anyone could vandalize the article at any time.
- But a version history is saved and there are many bots that crawl around looking for clear signs of intentional mis-information, in addition to the previously mentioned administrative task force
Misinformation takes time to find. On something as large as WP (tired of typing it all out), it takes a lot of time, even with help from software 'bots. During that time, people can view the article and the included misinformation. But that's a minor point, really.
quote:
4) There is no check in place to make sure you are a subject matter expert before you write an article on a subject.
- The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize information that is publicly available in other (hopefully trustworthy) places on the Internet. There are guidelines specifically stating that you should not make claims that can not be substantiated by resource links, and you should not post original research on Wikipedia. The guidelines are designed in this fashion to get around the need to have a subject matter expert on every article. If you're just posting what you've found, then the only expertise you require is the ability to accurately summarize the material. And most people can write a book report. Can all people? No. Mistakes will be made, things will be misread, and until an administrator or a peer checks your article against your sources, your erronous article is published.
Hold up hold up hold up. Did you just use the terms "trustworthy" and "internet" in a sentence that doesn't also contain "not"? Please excuse me while I giggle uncontrollably.
There are no trustworthy places on the Internet. Guidelines are not only inherently flexible, but can be easily changed. Administrators, software 'bots, and others in the community can also make mistakes in editing. Because, if it isn't that they're only human, then it's that they're only programmed by humans.
Not only that, but we return once again to the consensus argument. It's true that one expert can say, "No, that's bullshit, shut the fuck up! Banned!" But, if five laymen say "omfg u noob hez rite lolol b&b&b7", then consensus goes to the incorrect information. WP goes by straight number of "yes" versus number of "no", and not the correct opinions of multiple experts. And who can vote? Anyone with an Internet connection.
quote:
I just want to point out that it's not as rare of an occurance for an article to be double checked as you seem to be under the impression that it is. If you post an article of any significance or interest, chances are it will be hit in short order. On the other hand if you post an article on some insignificant and obscure topic, such as the Assistant to the Attorney General in 1961, it might be a while.
Again, this isn't what we're saying at all. RTFT. We haven't said shit about how many times it's checked, we've been talking about reliability. Number of views has nothing to do with it.
quote:
But your claim, Sir Bloodsage, is that "nothing in Wikipedia can be trusted."Now, I interpret this as you saying "There is not an article in Wikipedia that is trustworthy." Correct me if I'm wrong, since apparently having a Masters and taking some graduate level english classes entitles you to make the English requirement to qualify your generalities your own personal bitch, but this strikes me as an absolute statement.
Is it an absolute statement? Are you really arguing that there isn't a single article in Wikipedia which provides accurate information?
RTFT. We haven't said anything about WP's factual accuracy at any given point in time, we're talking about the guarantee it has that what it contains is accurate. Of which there is none.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about the Spice Girls:
There is a reason I'm ignoring you.
Because you can't take your pathetic arguments being soundly crushed?
You're a sad little man, Blindy.
Seriously, Blindy, you're really not very good at this whole discussion thing. At all. You barge in with "HAY GUYS THIS IZ WAT I THINK", and when everyone with a brain shows you you're pretty wrong, you start flipping out as if we've just insulted your entire ancestry.
Yet another NEWS FLASH: You don't know everything. You're not God. I don't give an eighth of a shit how big you claim your penis is. If you get owned, as you have in both discussions you've charged into now, flailing about just makes you look like more of an idiot.
Would you like to try to dispute my qualifications for saying this to you? Sean and Parce for sure can back them up. You're making the exact same mistakes I used to.
quote:
Tarquinn had this to say about Cuba:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4502846.stm
Doesn't completely fix what's broken, but it's a good start.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Ruvyen gently hums:
Doesn't completely fix what's broken, but it's a good start.
If by "good," you mean "cosmetic." The only requirement to create an account is to provide a username and password. All it is is a few seconds of time delay, preventing nothing at all.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
The Hitchhikers Guide has this to say on Bloodsage:
If by "good," you mean "cosmetic." The only requirement to create an account is to provide a username and password. All it is is a few seconds of time delay, preventing nothing at all.
This is correct.
