We lost, Wikipedia wins Options

[Emperor]

There is an entire generation of young adults out there who believes a bunch of stuff they read in Wikipedia.

They think Wikipedian, that combative, know-it-all, don't believe it unless they read it online, partisan, can't-be-reasoned-with attitude.

Wikipedia critics tried to get a message out but were overwhelmed by crazies, many of them Wikipedians themselves intentionally muddying the waters.

It's a decade later. The people who remember how to think are dying off. Game over.

Jimbo made a few bucks. Hopefully he feels bad a little. After a decade of actively serving hardcore pornography to children in schools he should be in jail.

[Ottava]

I think that is a little broad. There will still be tons of mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mathematicians, engineers, etc. that aren't affected in any way if Wikipedia is "wrong" in their field. It either works or it doesn't and the consequences are rather quick in those fields. Then there are tons of fields that don't really have much on Wikipedia - like clerks in a convenience store or cooks.

Most of society is immune from Wikipedia and anything like it.

[victim of censorship]

I think that is a little broad. There will still be tons of mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mathematicians, engineers, etc. that aren't affected in any way if Wikipedia is "wrong" in their field. It either works or it doesn't and the consequences are rather quick in those fields. Then there are tons of fields that don't really have much on Wikipedia - like clerks in a convenience store or cooks.

Most of society is immune from Wikipedia and anything like it.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON THIS...

SEE Andrew Keen

[Retrospect]

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON THIS...

You are accusing the saintly Dr. Ottava of being wrong? Heresy! Heresy!!

(You have completed your bloody PhD now Ottava, haven't you?)

This post has been edited by Retrospect: Mon 10th September 2012, 12:10pm

[Ottava]

I think that is a little broad. There will still be tons of mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mathematicians, engineers, etc. that aren't affected in any way if Wikipedia is "wrong" in their field. It either works or it doesn't and the consequences are rather quick in those fields. Then there are tons of fields that don't really have much on Wikipedia - like clerks in a convenience store or cooks.

Most of society is immune from Wikipedia and anything like it.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON THIS...

SEE Andrew Keen

Relying on Andrew Keen to critique Jimbo is a failure to not realize that everyone connected to such things are exaggerating their importance. You have chosen one cult charade over another. Neither side is meaningful or has any real influence. You need to spend more time in reality and not the internet. The internet people are only well-known or influential in their own minds.

[Detective]

You need to spend more time in reality and not the internet. The internet people are only well-known or influential in their own minds.

[everyking]

Wikipedia has eliminated critical thought? I don't see the connection. It's true that people tend to accept written sources rather uncritically, but that's true whether you're talking about an internet encyclopedia or a traditional encyclopedia--or a newspaper, for that matter. If anything, engagement in the creation of the product, or at least awareness of the way it is produced, ought to encourage more critical evaluation of written sources, a greater perception of fallibility. Are people more likely to critically evaluate Wikipedia, or Britannica?

Anyway, Wikipedia has only "won" because it has provided a product that is vital for the age we live in--a really big, very up-to-date, easily accessible, free internet encyclopedia. Nobody has been able to compete, because nothing else satisfies the demand nearly as well. The Wikipedia model is the one that works.

[dtobias]

Andrew Keen strikes me as a pretentious twit cashing in on the backlash against excesses of Internet exuberance by writing things equally vapid in the opposing point of view.

On the other hand, he still probably has sufficient sense that, if he happened to be aware of the existence of Mr. VoC here, he'd probably disavow the views of that nutcase as not being in any way justified by anything Keen wrote.

Keen deserves to be calmly rebutted. VoC deserves to be locked up in a padded cell.

[Emperor]

sorry database error made me post twice

[Emperor]

Wikipedia has eliminated critical thought? I don't see the connection. It's true that people tend to accept written sources rather uncritically, but that's true whether you're talking about an internet encyclopedia or a traditional encyclopedia--or a newspaper, for that matter. If anything, engagement in the creation of the product, or at least awareness of the way it is produced, ought to encourage more critical evaluation of written sources, a greater perception of fallibility. Are people more likely to critically evaluate Wikipedia, or Britannica?

Anyway, Wikipedia has only "won" because it has provided a product that is vital for the age we live in--a really big, very up-to-date, easily accessible, free internet encyclopedia. Nobody has been able to compete, because nothing else satisfies the demand nearly as well. The Wikipedia model is the one that works.

It works as maybe an entertainment curiosity, but for anything important there are way better ways to get an accurate picture of the world. Too many errors, hoaxes, distortions, perverts etc. People trust the internet ridiculously. I had an argument with some guy about something, he wouldn't believe me because the web page said something different. I had written the page myself!

The greater perception of fallibility has led to not trusting anything or anyone, which simply isn't true. You need to trust in order to get anything done. Not trusting leads to crazy decisions based in internet-know-it-all dork logic, not reason. I don't really know how to explain this to you. If you don't know it by now you never will.

[dtobias]

I had an argument with some guy about something, he wouldn't believe me because the web page said something different. I had written the page myself!

Then, basically, you were arguing with yourself.

[Ottava]

Too many errors, hoaxes, distortions, perverts etc. People trust the internet ridiculously.

I think people are more easily mislead by chain letters/chain emails than by Wikipedia. Snopes was created to combat against that.

Why not create a Wikipedia targeted version of Snopes?

Regardless, people will always be ignorant, easily mislead, etc., regardless of Wikipedia's existence.

[victim of censorship]

Andrew Keen strikes me as a pretentious twit cashing in on the backlash against excesses of Internet exuberance by writing things equally vapid in the opposing point of view.

On the other hand, he still probably has sufficient sense that, if he happened to be aware of the existence of Mr. VoC here, he'd probably disavow the views of that nutcase as not being in any way justified by anything Keen wrote.

Keen deserves to be calmly rebutted. VoC deserves to be locked up in a padded cell.

I think you need to be jacked in the ass by BIG- N- VEINY TARC...

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Wed 12th September 2012, 4:47am

[Emperor]

well, uh, good seeing you guys again.

[Ottava]

well, uh, good seeing you guys again.

Hi Emperor. Good to see you about too.