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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia, Chronicle of Higher Education
mbz1
post Thu 16th February 2012, 2:30pm
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



And yet another wikipidiot wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ldid=477057967:
QUOTE
So all MesserKruse did was leave two dozen edits and messages. That's a pretty low frustration tolerance. He spent less time on this than he would marking an undergraduate paper. Conversely, he didn't learn the Wikipedia style of comments, citation, etc. So Wikipedia's response wasn't that ridiculous after all.


It is really amazing, that the user who wrote this believe that an advise to take a look at wikipedia civility policy in response to a very polite post at an article's talk page "wasn't that ridiculous". wtf.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Thu 16th February 2012, 3:11pm
Post #22


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE
Then, in 2011, he came back and finaly got the procedures right

Note the battleground mentality. Surely the idea about encouraging people to Be Bold and Anyone Can Edit is not to treat newcomers as idiots to be tolerated until they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom, but that if someone has information people should be helping them get that information in.

Instead we have "What is in Wikipedia must be right and we will not tolerate newcomers suggesting otherwise." where the drawbridge goes up and a few warning shots are fired rather than considering that this person could be helpful.

Wikipedians need to remember that policy is to encourage people to edit, not to discourage. Still, Hasten the Day!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mister Die
post Fri 17th February 2012, 12:06pm
Post #23


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun 29th Jan 2012, 11:32pm
Member No.: 75,644

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Fri 17th February 2012, 12:23pm
Post #24


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,859
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(Mister Die @ Fri 17th February 2012, 7:06am) *

The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.


Exactly. What kills me is when people use the term "research" to describe dinking around on the internet.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Fri 17th February 2012, 1:20pm
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 16th February 2012, 3:11pm) *

they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom

I look forward to Eric Barbour and HK making fun of dogbiscuit in the way that they just have of Radek. mad.gif

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=298073

Of course anyone can make a slip however well they speak English!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 17th February 2012, 4:35pm
Post #26


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 17th February 2012, 8:20am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 16th February 2012, 3:11pm) *

they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom

I look forward to Eric Barbour and HK making fun of dogbiscuit in the way that they just have of Radek. mad.gif

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=298073

Of course anyone can make a slip however well they speak English!


Seems like "Fusion" has a Mike Baxter way of fixating on the small stuff.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Fri 17th February 2012, 10:00pm
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 17th February 2012, 4:35pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 17th February 2012, 8:20am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 16th February 2012, 3:11pm) *

they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom

I look forward to Eric Barbour and HK making fun of dogbiscuit in the way that they just have of Radek. mad.gif

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=298073

Of course anyone can make a slip however well they speak English!


Seems like "Fusion" has a Mike Baxter way of fixating on the small stuff.

That from someone who is forever quibbling about apostrophes!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Sat 18th February 2012, 5:46am
Post #28


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE

Here it is 2012 … and some academics are just now finding this stuff out about Wikiputia …

It is important to understand that the Wikipediot Weltansuckung is a whole nuther Point Of View on all and sundry matters, an i-land unto itself, detached from reality as normal folks know it … and it will above all defend itself to the death.

See the Wikipedia Review for further e-lightenment —

http://wikipediareview.com/

Jon Awbrey • 18 Feb 2012

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Sun 19th February 2012, 12:13am
Post #29


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 17th February 2012, 7:23am) *

QUOTE(Mister Die @ Fri 17th February 2012, 7:06am) *

The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.

Exactly. What kills me is when people use the term "research" to describe dinking around on the internet.

Over time, google will probably have a lot of older documents ("Public Domain" and all that) relating to all sorts of things. There's probably all sorts of documents out there that refer to homosexuality as a mental disorder, how eugenics is a great thing, the inferiority of Africans, etc. Presumably those are all reliable sources as well.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Sun 19th February 2012, 3:19am
Post #30


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,859
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 18th February 2012, 7:13pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 17th February 2012, 7:23am) *

QUOTE(Mister Die @ Fri 17th February 2012, 7:06am) *

The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.

Exactly. What kills me is when people use the term "research" to describe dinking around on the internet.

Over time, google will probably have a lot of older documents ("Public Domain" and all that) relating to all sorts of things. There's probably all sorts of documents out there that refer to homosexuality as a mental disorder, how eugenics is a great thing, the inferiority of Africans, etc. Presumably those are all reliable sources as well.


Yes there were differences years ago but there are problems with the way people write today, and critical reading skills are as important as ever.

It was Wikipedia, after all, that felt it was necessary to tell readers that the Philadelphia region has lots of African Americans, high crime, and poverty all in one breath.

Anyway that's beside the point... most Wikipedians couldn't research themselves out of a paper bag and we all know that. If you're really defending Google-fu as a way of resolving important disagreements good luck with that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Sun 19th February 2012, 7:51pm
Post #31


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE

Researchers who wish to study the warping, er, development of the Wikipediot Point Of View (WPOV) over time, especially with regard to the privileging of secondary and second-rate sources over primary sources, would do well to begin at the beginning. Here are a couple of links to a study that I began way back when I had nothing better to do —

No Original Research : Historical Datapoints @ Wikipedia

No Original Research : Historical Datapoints @ Wikipedia Review

Jon Awbrey • 19 Feb 2012

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Sun 19th February 2012, 10:10pm
Post #32


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Jimbo apparently thinks it's to his advantage to ride the wave on this one. ASCIIn2Bme helpfully takes up the cause of allowing Jimbo to point to "community resistance" when his suggardaddies donors bring it up and ask why nothing's being done about it. Nice strategy there.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Wed 22nd February 2012, 2:01pm
Post #33


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 16th February 2012, 9:43am) *

QUOTE(iii @ Thu 16th February 2012, 3:37am) *

I was waiting for some drone to make this argument:

QUOTE
Putting that kind of external pressure on an article, even if he is factually correct and has sources to back up his argument, sounds like a pretty basic case of conflict of interest to me.


Is this an poor attempt at humor? It almost reads like parody.

It's a natural extension of having a belief that any knowledge of a subject disqualifies you from editing and COI is a way of expressing that. One day, we will see the combination of COI, OWN and 3RR and we will find that anyone who has made more than three edits to an article will be banned from Wikipedia for taking undue interest in what they are editing.

One argument that has so far been neglected is that the article in the Chronicle was a clear WP:CANVASSING violation. It was clearly a non-neutral message, and it was directed at a select audience – scholars – that might be supportive of the poster's stance, and has led to an influx of new editors who had no prior interest in the article. fear.gif

Discussion is still rumbling on on the Foundation list. Mike Godwin has involved himself with a few posts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Wed 22nd February 2012, 3:34pm
Post #34


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 9:01am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 16th February 2012, 9:43am) *

QUOTE(iii @ Thu 16th February 2012, 3:37am) *

I was waiting for some drone to make this argument:

QUOTE
Putting that kind of external pressure on an article, even if he is factually correct and has sources to back up his argument, sounds like a pretty basic case of conflict of interest to me.


Is this an poor attempt at humor? It almost reads like parody.

It's a natural extension of having a belief that any knowledge of a subject disqualifies you from editing and COI is a way of expressing that. One day, we will see the combination of COI, OWN and 3RR and we will find that anyone who has made more than three edits to an article will be banned from Wikipedia for taking undue interest in what they are editing.

One argument that has so far been neglected is that the article in the Chronicle was a clear WP:CANVASSING violation. It was clearly a non-neutral message, and it was directed at a select audience – scholars – that might be supportive of the poster's stance, and has led to an influx of new editors who had no prior interest in the article. fear.gif

Discussion is still rumbling on on the Foundation list. Mike Godwin has involved himself with a few posts.


It's getting some airtime on NPR. From Andrew Lih:

QUOTE
(Wednesday) I'll be on NPR's Talk
of the Nation radio show with Timothy Messer-Kruse himself, to talk
about his experiences.

Tune in, and feel free to send questions/comments my way (that are helpful!)


Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Wed 22nd February 2012, 7:35pm
Post #35


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(iii @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 3:34pm) *



Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 22nd February 2012, 7:41pm
Post #36


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 2:35pm) *

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.


Let me help you with that; see definition #2. "Ignorant, plebian."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Wed 22nd February 2012, 7:42pm
Post #37


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



"The Great Unwashed" but it might also refer to the personal hygiene of of adolescent geeks: SOAP being a Microsoft technolgy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 22nd February 2012, 7:45pm
Post #38


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 2:35pm) *

QUOTE(iii @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 3:34pm) *

Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.

It means "dirty".

It's an old expression, originally referring to people who couldn't afford to have servants draw them a bath on a regular basis (pulling up enough pails of water out of a well to fill a tub, not to mention heating it to a comfortable temperature and having plenty of expensive soap and perfume was actually quite a chore before running water).

In this case, I think it just refers to slackers who (a) live with their parents and waste their days playing around on the interwebs, and (b) rarely shower, because they rarely go out on dates. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Thu 23rd February 2012, 2:33am
Post #39


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 2:35pm) *

QUOTE(iii @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 3:34pm) *



Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.


The others covered it well, but I always felt, accused as I am of being an elitist for saying that experts should be in charge of the production of reliable content, that this old idiom is both in-line with my accusers' claim of my attitude while also literally describing Wikipedians' hygiene.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Thu 23rd February 2012, 2:53am
Post #40


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



NPR audio and transcript here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
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: 24th 10 14, 10:14am