The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Too Stupid to Live
Detective
post Fri 14th October 2011, 3:26pm
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 11th October 2011, 8:27pm) *

My last quip was an old Will Rogers joke (though nobody can find where he actually wrote it).

Maybe that's because it's considerably older than Will Rogers. It originally said that every Irish immigrant to England lowers the average intelligence of both countries.

(Ducks as Alison swipes.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
timbo
post Sat 15th October 2011, 1:56am
Post #22


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri 4th Jun 2010, 3:08am
Member No.: 21,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The whole notion of "reliable sources" is pretty idiotic, actually. The key question is objective accuracy; whether facts come from a primary, secondary, or tertiary source should be, ummmm, secondary to the, uhhhhh, primary concern of VERACITY.

There is bullshit in all published media. There is truth on unedited amateur blogs. Some mainstream media is more bullshit-laden than others (looking at you, Fox News). Some blogs are farcically untrustworthy, to be sure. The whole notion of one-size-fits-all Reliable Sources rules is stupid.

This is original sin dating back to the Philosophers coming down from the mount in 2002 or whatever year it was that Sanger and Wales got serious about systematizing this project...

t
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sat 15th October 2011, 2:40am
Post #23


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(timbo @ Fri 14th October 2011, 6:56pm) *

The whole notion of "reliable sources" is pretty idiotic, actually. The key question is objective accuracy; whether facts come from a primary, secondary, or tertiary source should be, ummmm, secondary to the, uhhhhh, primary concern of VERACITY.

There is bullshit in all published media. There is truth on unedited amateur blogs. Some mainstream media is more bullshit-laden than others (looking at you, Fox News). Some blogs are farcically untrustworthy, to be sure. The whole notion of one-size-fits-all Reliable Sources rules is stupid.

This is original sin dating back to the Philosophers coming down from the mount in 2002 or whatever year it was that Sanger and Wales got serious about systematizing this project...

t

Well, some wasn't THAT original. Yes, for obvious reasons considering the demographics of their writers, WMF didn't trust it to have any idea of truth or even how to detect it. So they did the next best thing: they substituted "authority" for "epistemological competence."

It took quite a while for them to figure out how to define "authority" and finally they decided that it amounted to "non-self-published published material." This wasn't a very good proxy, but it was the best they could do, and now they've stuck to it.

It has obvious problems: when it comes to e-publishing, it hardly matters if you publish it yourself or "someone else" (yuck, yuck) does it FOR you. Without the money problems of publishing, the care of editing goes out the window.

The other problem is that even in venues where publishing still costs money (paper journalism), editorial care is a slave to monied interests in many ways, from time-pressure to sponsor and subscriber pressure, and this can get so bad that a private blog on the net can be far more truthful than the Weekly World News.

Perhaps the main original sin is that everybody forgot during the setting of WP souring policy back in 2005 that there's no good way to separate the independently-published sources that are truthful, from those that are as true as Tass and Mein Kampf. Ah, we let WP's editors figure that out, do we? I thought we'd agreed they are idiots? Hmmm.

Wait, I have it! smile.gif We let OTHER published sources tell us what the reliable published sources are! ermm.gif huh.gif hmmm.gif Hence the primary and secondary thing.

Gee, it's kind of a recursive conundrum, ain't it? wacko.gif It's all kids and no teacher, and chaos ensues.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Sat 15th October 2011, 3:00pm
Post #24


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



The entirety of the "reliable sources" and "verifiability" "rules" on Wikipedia developed not out of an attempt to build a coherent epistemology from which to write an encyclopedia. Rather, what's happened is as various powerful editors sought to include this source and exclude that source, they have tweaked and twisted the policies so as to give them Plausible Arguments why the source they want is "reliable" and the source they don't is "unreliable". That's why the policies, if you actually read them, are inconsistent, circular, and often inchoate. They weren't designed to make sense, or with any purpose or rationale other than winning the argument immediately at hand.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
timbo
post Tue 18th October 2011, 11:15pm
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri 4th Jun 2010, 3:08am
Member No.: 21,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Plot a regression and do that "The Wicked Witch Is Dead" dance again for our entertainment, Eric!

xoxo,

timbo


P.S. Feel free to include pre-2008 data points.

This post has been edited by timbo: Tue 18th October 2011, 11:16pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
timbo
post Tue 18th October 2011, 11:22pm
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri 4th Jun 2010, 3:08am
Member No.: 21,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 18th October 2011, 1:09pm) *


If you'd read the damn book (which I actually have)...



Which makes you, by my reckoning, at least 80 years old...


timbo
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd 11 17, 11:23am