| |
 WikiSynergy, What is this? |
|
|
| Shalom |
 Wed 5th August 2009, 11:25pm
|
Über Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 5th August 2009, 6:32pm)  Someone earlier linked to this http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Main_PageWhat is this? And why is it scraping Wikipedia pages? http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Request_fo...(JzG)-_DecisionWill this junk never end? MAN ON THE MOON Seriously, Kato, sites that scrape Wikipedia content, even meaningless backroom discussions, are old history. It's not news. Why people bother to set up sites for this purpose? Because it costs practically nothing and might bring in a few advertising dollars. (Note: I cannot confirm whether the cost-benefit analysis supports the existence of a particular website.) This post has been edited by Shalom: Wed 5th August 2009, 11:26pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
Wed 5th August 2009, 11:29pm
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,418
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sarcasticidealist |
Thu 6th August 2009, 2:07am
|
Head exploded.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,630
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 5th August 2009, 10:53pm) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th August 2009, 2:51am)
It looks to be some sort of skeptic's site; skeptics generally love Wikipedia because they've been quite successful in pushing their personal preferences into Wikipedia's house editorial policy. I wouldn't call this site "critical" of Wikipedia; I think it may actually be a recruiting tool.
No, I think it is the other way round. Yeah, it rails against "pseudoskepticism", by which it means that people who think that homeopathy is bunk are taking it on faith, rather than relying on the extensive empirical evidence to that effect. (I found this site a couple of weeks ago while vanity googling my sarcasticidealist handle. When you're named "Steve Smith", it's hard to do it with your real name.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| emesee |
Thu 6th August 2009, 6:13am
|
ban me
Group: Tanked
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 11th Oct 2008, 8:41pm
From: aww
Member No.: 8,586
|
CC-By-SA QUOTE
* To provide a common meeting place for each sector of frontier thought.
* To further our understanding of the common scientific and social issues of frontier thought, the problems generally encountered, and how frontier thinkers and organizations can better engage with their environment.
* To further our understanding of the milieu in which frontier thought exists.
* To provide a common ground for dialogue with skeptics and the common themes of skepticism, in which correct ideas rather than rhetoric will prevail.
* To provide mutual aid when confronted with unscientific skepticism.[1]
* To form links between individuals who work in different sectors of frontier thought which will provide mutual strength.
* To provide accurate summaries of the current state of frontier thought.
* To further frontier thought by providing a structured environment in which various levels of consensus on frontier issues can be clearly defined.
* To publish articles on frontier subjects, and to provide a mechanism for peer-review of these articles.
* To provide a central directory of frontier thought, including the paranormal, science which is not widely accepted as proven, new or struggling paradigms, and the metaphysical and theoretical issues surrounding them.
* In this enterprise we realize that by their nature, many aspects of frontier thought are either "false," or will prove of little use to humanity. Thus, in our search for what is most beneficial, useful, and true, we understand that some of our cherished ideas, will fail and be left behind. To the extent that each of us is capable, we endeavor to release our preconceptions in order that we, and the understanding of humanity, can grow.
* We also understand that some aspects of frontier thought will prove to be useful and real, and we therefore dedicate ourselves to the true essence of skepticism, which is open questioning and a willingness to humbly follow the evidence, and then make sure our opinions change so as to harmonize with that evidence.[2]
So that is the about page i think. Also check the recent changes to get a decent idea about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
Thu 6th August 2009, 2:20pm
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributor
Posts: 10,151
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th August 2009, 9:46am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 6th August 2009, 6:06am) It's a bit of an irony for skeptics not to be skeptical of Wikipedia. In my experience, most of the people claiming to be "skeptics" are not the least bit skeptical of anything: they are all very certain of what they believe to be false.  A skeptic is supposed to be skeptical of that which has not yet been proven (or disproven) beyond a shadow of a doubt. Way back when I was studying Aristotelian Logic, I was intrigued by Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle. That law states that if a proposition is not true, then it must necessarily be false, and vice versa: there is no middle ground. Russel's Paradox threw a monkey wrench into that notion, and Kurt Godel further turned the wrench by demonstrating that there can be mathematical propositions which are true but mathematically unprovable (within the system in which they are stated). Twentieth Century analysis brought us beyond Aristotle, to the regime of propositions whose truth value is unknowable, leading to the advent of Continuous Valued Logic, where the truth value of proposition can various continuously from 0 (definitely false) to 1 (definitely true). Skeptical inquiry recognizes that belief, when analyzed within the modern context, rarely makes it all the way to 0 or 1. There is almost always room for a shadow of doubt, and the door must be left open that widely held belief is liable to be falsified when you least expect it. More to the point, one should be prepared for some wiseguy to come along and invent the previously non-existent middle. My favorite example is a variety of hybrid corn called Butter and Sugar Corn, which has both white and yellow kernels. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
Thu 6th August 2009, 3:06pm
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,418
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th August 2009, 4:34am)
Ah, I missed a meta level here. Yes, these people would be critical of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is very much a haven for what they call "pseudoskepticism". I had an interesting conversation in email the other day with Sage Ross on this issue and Wikipedia's unreasonable skew toward the "pseudoskeptic" position; I wonder if he's involved in the site.
One of the biggest problems with History in relation to a populist venture like Wikipedia, is that established stories based on the most evidence are often the ones with the least advocates. As Wikipedia is rich with mobs quoting wildly inaccurate media citations, this means that a credible academic understanding of a topic can be buried beneath acres of bullshit. And those proposing a nuanced, serious approach to providing the most accurate portrayal of an event can be dismissed as "fringe cranks" or "POV pushers". In summary, (1) the media is no place to go for historical analysis. (2) If you've learnt everything you know about history from the media or populist sources, everything you know is probably wrong. (3) Just because you are disputing the details in a bunch of New York Times stories, that doesn't make you a "crank". |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelly Martin |
Thu 6th August 2009, 3:18pm
|
Member-Free since 1993!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,474
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th August 2009, 10:06am) And those proposing a nuanced, serious approach to providing the most accurate portrayal of an event can be dismissed as "fringe cranks" or "POV pushers". Or as "original research", as Wikipedia does not tolerate any serious effort at evaluatory synthesis (as that would require evaluating the merits of sources and claims and reaching a conclusion as to which ones are most likely to be true). QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th August 2009, 10:06am) In summary, (1) the media is no place to go for historical analysis. (2) If you've learnt everything you know about history from the media or populist sources, everything you know is probably wrong. (3) Just because you are disputing the details in a bunch of New York Times stories, that doesn't make you a "crank". It's (1) and (2) that truly undermine the idea that "crowdsourcing" an encyclopedia will lead to greater accuracy. It may lead to a greater perception of accuracy, because the crowdsourced article will, over time, tend to say what most people believe to be true, but if anything it creates a force that acts in opposition to truth (which I will brazenly call "wikiality") simply because on so many topics the beliefs of the majority are not well-attached to the truth. The sad fact is that most people are ignorant of most things, and far too few people have the intelligence to recognize the things that they are truly ignorant of, and therefore act as if they knew things that they actually don't. "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell. |
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
Thu 6th August 2009, 3:45pm
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,702
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th August 2009, 4:18pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th August 2009, 10:06am) And those proposing a nuanced, serious approach to providing the most accurate portrayal of an event can be dismissed as "fringe cranks" or "POV pushers". Or as "original research", as Wikipedia does not tolerate any serious effort at evaluatory synthesis (as that would require evaluating the merits of sources and claims and reaching a conclusion as to which ones are most likely to be true). QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th August 2009, 10:06am) In summary, (1) the media is no place to go for historical analysis. (2) If you've learnt everything you know about history from the media or populist sources, everything you know is probably wrong. (3) Just because you are disputing the details in a bunch of New York Times stories, that doesn't make you a "crank". It's (1) and (2) that truly undermine the idea that "crowdsourcing" an encyclopedia will lead to greater accuracy. It may lead to a greater perception of accuracy, because the crowdsourced article will, over time, tend to say what most people believe to be true, but if anything it creates a force that acts in opposition to truth (which I will brazenly call "wikiality") simply because on so many topics the beliefs of the majority are not well-attached to the truth. The sad fact is that most people are ignorant of most things, and far too few people have the intelligence to recognize the things that they are truly ignorant of, and therefore act as if they knew things that they actually don't. "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell. Indeed. In fact I'd go further and suggest we are actually becoming more ignorant, because although we have a mass of data at our fingertips, it is becoming harder to divine what is real fact and what is wikiality. I think the media are in part responsible for this decline. These days there is no reporting of facts, but instead a mishmash of reporting of hearsay joined together with "expert analysis" which I see as having been quite destructive to politics, for example. In the UK, anything Gordon Brown does is assumed to be incompetent and the BBC will carry a story which although purports to be impartial reporting, actually consists of repetition of opposition criticism, spokesperson denials and a sarcastic "analysis" so the underlying issue is lost in a whirlpool of recriminations. I simply cannot listen to the news on the BBC any more because of the foolish Chief Political Editor Nick Robinson who is so fond of his own voice and opinions, a sad contrast to Andrew Marr who was a responsible and thoughtful analyst - I'd abandoned ITV as a visual Daily Mail/Sun populist hybrid and C4 news is too worthy and dull so I don't have a real opinion of it as I haven't stayed awake long enough to know. Given that what we know of the world is what we see through the media plus our own experiences, and our own experiences are so limited, it is unsurprising that modern thinking of the masses is so confused. It is trivial for the media to whip up a frenzy - Swine Flu vaccine has not been tested for 20 years so how can it be safe - it must be a Government plot to fool the masses being a current theme. It is no surprise, however, that when you do have your own experience of a significant event, unfiltered by the media, the knowledge you have is rather different to the reported events, and this knowledge should inform you as to how reliable the media is generally. The idea that you can homogenise the media and turn it into encyclopedic knowledge is simply foolish. That is not to say that the principle of Wikipedia at its inception was flawed, rather that its evolution, under the guiding hands of the world's great thinkers such as SlimVirgin has driven it down a path that guarantees that the end result cannot be of any great worth. Bearing this in mind, it perhaps also shows that areas of the encyclopedia which have been built by those with a more rigorous approach (such as the scientific sections) which are not built on the media but on journals and other quality sources, can avoid some of the pitfalls and so can withstand expert scrutiny - as long as some crowdsource mob does not take an interest at some time in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
