Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Articles _ Destiny

Posted by: Peter Damian

The Maverick Philosopher today on philosophy in Wikipedia http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/02/should-you-trust-wikipedia.html

QUOTE

"I won't continue through the passage. It is bad throughout. What I hated about teaching was having to wade through garbage like this. How does one explain to an incompetent writer what competent writing is?"

Posted by: Emperor

Nice blog entry.

I skimmed the Wikipedia article but I think it had something to do with Charmed and Battlestar Galactica.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 18th February 2012, 8:06am) *

The Maverick Philosopher today on philosophy in Wikipedia http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/02/should-you-trust-wikipedia.html

QUOTE

"I won't continue through the passage. It is bad throughout. What I hated about teaching was having to wade through garbage like this. How does one explain to an incompetent writer what competent writing is?"


As a sometimes paid editor, and one who has taught writing and composition, first you must have their attention.

Then you take a pencil to one of their sentences and bring into it life and vigor. That usually provides enough motivation.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 18th February 2012, 4:06pm) *
The Maverick Philosopher today on philosophy in Wikipedia http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/02/should-you-trust-wikipedia.html
QUOTE
"I won't continue through the passage. It is bad throughout. What I hated about teaching was having to wade through garbage like this. How does one explain to an incompetent writer what competent writing is?"

I don't know what makes writing good or bad, I just know what I like. The quoted Wikipedia entry made my eyes glaze over.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sat 18th February 2012, 5:50pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 18th February 2012, 4:06pm) *
The Maverick Philosopher today on philosophy in Wikipedia http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/02/should-you-trust-wikipedia.html
QUOTE
"I won't continue through the passage. It is bad throughout. What I hated about teaching was having to wade through garbage like this. How does one explain to an incompetent writer what competent writing is?"

I don't know what makes writing good or bad, I just know what I like. The quoted Wikipedia entry made my eyes glaze over.


He didn't say bad, he said 'incompetent'.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sat 18th February 2012, 5:46pm) *


As a sometimes paid editor, and one who has taught writing and composition, first you must have their attention.

Then you take a pencil to one of their sentences and bring into it life and vigor. That usually provides enough motivation.


Except at Wikipedia, it provides motivation for the offending editor to gather his allies for massive retaliation.

Posted by: EricBarbour

This is what you need, more actual philosophers looking at Wikipedia articles about philosophy closely,
and realizing they are incoherent. And talking about it. Logic and epistemology, among other areas, are places
where bad writing is not merely bad---it makes the whole endeavour pointless.

It shows where Wikipedia falls down badly. When it's spewing statistics or the names of frigging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Codename:_Kids_Next_Door_episodes, crowdsourcing works. Anything more subtle or complex
is a major issue with the "magic" of crowdsourcing.

For some things, you must have an expert. Wikipedia will go to its digital grave, refusing to admit that.