What "acid" tests?
I too use Wiki but I do not consider it to be a valid source and always seek corroborating material elsewhere ... it is absolutely no good when it comes to any contentious area and thes4e days that can include almost any area of biological science and much of geology and cosmology.
You can post whatever you like on Wiki, it is simply a matter of whether the staff (all volunteers as I understand it and, more to the point, all hidden behind handles) catch that in time and possess the relevant knowledge. The thing about real encyclopaedias is that being financially oriented they need to ensure their product is of a certain quality and as such will hire in relevant experts to write specific articles, Wiki is utterly reliant on voluntary effort, it scraped on many sites and is therefore highly penetrative and influential (arguably far greater than it deserves) and volunteers do what they do for many reasons not all of them "good".
One man was branded complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy for a periods of (IIRC) 132 days quite simply because one person was vindictive, the relevant moderator wasn't knowledgeable enough to catch it (TBH I think something of that potential magnitude should have been checked anyway) and the "accused" wasn't made aware of it until his son noticed it. It took him longer to get the material off scraping sites like Ask and he has yet to discover the identity of the person who posted the material (not specifically Wiki's fault but wouldn't have been an issue had they done their job properly).
The following is an article I was writing on the subject following my remarks to Mark:
As you can see, not quite finished yet but there you go so this thread will be interesting
Kyu
I too use Wiki but I do not consider it to be a valid source and always seek corroborating material elsewhere ... it is absolutely no good when it comes to any contentious area and thes4e days that can include almost any area of biological science and much of geology and cosmology.
You can post whatever you like on Wiki, it is simply a matter of whether the staff (all volunteers as I understand it and, more to the point, all hidden behind handles) catch that in time and possess the relevant knowledge. The thing about real encyclopaedias is that being financially oriented they need to ensure their product is of a certain quality and as such will hire in relevant experts to write specific articles, Wiki is utterly reliant on voluntary effort, it scraped on many sites and is therefore highly penetrative and influential (arguably far greater than it deserves) and volunteers do what they do for many reasons not all of them "good".
One man was branded complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy for a periods of (IIRC) 132 days quite simply because one person was vindictive, the relevant moderator wasn't knowledgeable enough to catch it (TBH I think something of that potential magnitude should have been checked anyway) and the "accused" wasn't made aware of it until his son noticed it. It took him longer to get the material off scraping sites like Ask and he has yet to discover the identity of the person who posted the material (not specifically Wiki's fault but wouldn't have been an issue had they done their job properly).
The following is an article I was writing on the subject following my remarks to Mark:
Quote: The Problem With Wikipedia
I debate; I do so in a highly contentious arena that of science versus, well, non-science and usually, as an ardent supporter of science, that means I am debating against theists of some description (it can be nu-philosophers or conspiracy nuts but typically it's theists and even more typically these days they tend to be a kind nu-theist/nu-philosophy hybrid.
So I debate and typically I express an argument in my own words and usually from my own knowledge but sometimes I have to cite other sources, others do to and that’s' often where Wikipedia comes in.
Wikipedia was launched in 2001 and describes itself as a free, multilingual, non-profit encyclopaedia project whose articles can edited by anyone who can access its website and therein lies one of the problems, that anyone can edit its articles. Despite the fact that it is currently the most popular reference site on the internet a number of criticisms have been levied at Wikipedia, these are:
• Influence.
• Accuracy.
• Reliability.
• Plagiarism.
Influence
Wikipedia has a massive influence on the web, an influence it does not really deserve and this appears to be mainly due to "scrapers". "Scrapers" are sites that wish to carry advertising and to do that all they need is content and Wikipedia, with some 12 million articles, is the ideal choice, there's nothing wrong with that if the information is good but what if it isn't?
Accuracy
Critics have said that Wikipedia is inherently biased favouring common agreement over expertise and shows significant inconsistency between articles written by different authors.
Reliability
Critics have also said that Wikipedia is susceptible to vandalism (though usually only for brief periods) and the inclusion of errant data. An example of vandalism is the experience of John Seigenthaler who was cited on Wikipedia as being implicitly involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy for a total period of 132 days (longer on a number of major "scraper" sites) ... Seigenthaler has subsequently attempted to discover the identity of the libeller with no success finding that IPS's were not interested in helping him find such information as it would reflect poorly on them.
As you can see, not quite finished yet but there you go so this thread will be interesting
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
