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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch.
Cedric
post Sun 23rd January 2011, 12:37pm
Post #101


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Gruntled @ Sun 23rd January 2011, 4:58am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 22nd January 2011, 2:31pm) *

Wikipedia's readers are generally credulous; they uncritically assume that what they read on Wikipedia is true. If they didn't, they wouldn't be reading Wikipedia at all.

I agree at least 95% of the time with Kelly, but I think she's gone just a tad far here. Yes, there are many people who uncriticallly accept everything they find on the Internet. It's not a problem peculiar to Wikipedia. Equally, there are people who go to Wikipedia to find photos and links.

The fact that uncritical acceptance is not a phenomenon limited to Wikipedia in no way nullifies the point she is making here. To put it in wikipediot argot: "WP:OTHERIDIOCYEXISTS".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Sun 23rd January 2011, 1:33pm
Post #102


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



A contribution from the wilderness from somebody who has run into the IDCAB before:

QUOTE
In a children's story, there are Good Guys and Bad Guys. The Good Guys are 100% right and the Bad Guys are 100% wrong.

But in a real drama, there is more than one issue in flux, and neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong on any single issue.

In ID, there are two key issues. One issue is the Ground Truth, which Kelly Martin has addressed. A complementary issue is Epistemological Methodology, which Charles Ainsworth and Steve Harris have addressed.

The IDCab Gang may be on the right side with respect to the Ground Truth, but they fall down on their level of respect for Epistemological Methodology (in this case, rigorous adherence to the protocols of the Scientific Method). They want to push their (mostly correct) view of the Ground Truth with an atrociously bullying departure from Scientific and Epistemology Methodology.

It occurs to me that the IDCab Gang, with their atrocious bullying tactics, do more harm to the integrity of the scientific method than the good they do, by foolishly trying to quash the fair presentation and evaluation of an otherwise erroneous hypothesis.

To my mind, it's more important to maintain rigorous adherence to the protocols of the scientific method than to inform the reader what the outcome of the scientific jury's verdict is in the case of Darwinian Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. There is negligible educational value in reporting what the scientists believe. There is substantial educational value in illustrating and consistently employing the tools for thought that characterize the scientific method.

Moulton
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Sun 23rd January 2011, 2:46pm
Post #103


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

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



QUOTE(Gruntled @ Sun 23rd January 2011, 4:58am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 22nd January 2011, 2:31pm) *

Wikipedia's readers are generally credulous; they uncritically assume that what they read on Wikipedia is true. If they didn't, they wouldn't be reading Wikipedia at all.

I agree at least 95% of the time with Kelly, but I think she's gone just a tad far here. Yes, there are many people who uncriticallly accept everything they find on the Internet. It's not a problem peculiar to Wikipedia. Equally, there are people who go to Wikipedia to find photos and links.
If anything, Wikipedia compounds the general problem of idiocy on the internet by shellacking its essentially random content with a thin coating of encyclopedic respectability. Encyclopedias, as everyone knows, are edited by knowledgeable people and reviewed closely by people who would know to make sure they're correct. It's a lot easier to believe Wikipedia, which claims to be, after all, an "encyclopedia", than it is to believe Joe's Blog About Cars, especially since the latter has pictures of Joe's puppies prominently displayed just above his very-well researched article about the 1962 Corvette. The reader isn't going to realize that Joe is quite likely more knowledgeable on that topic than Wikipedia, unless (as is quite likely the case) the Wikipedia article was written by Joe.

The simply truth is that most people don't critically evaluate what they hear, no matter where they hear it. ("The Daily Show: Where more people get their news than probably should.") But they're even less likely to do so if they hear it from someone who says it under color of respectability, and Wikipedia has long tried to engender a false aura of respectability, when in reality it's just a gigantic graffiti wall.

To bring this back to topic, this is essentially the same strategy being used by ID proponents: they are taking a religious belief and dipping it in a thin coating of scientific shellac to make it appear to be a scientific theory, to take advantage of the fact that many people (especially those who grew up in the third quarter of the last century) have been enculturated to trust scientists pretty much without question. Scientists don't lie, after all. They're just not capable of it!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Thu 3rd February 2011, 10:12pm
Post #104


Chameleon
*****

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Thu 3rd February 2011, 11:37pm
Post #105


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 3rd February 2011, 10:12pm) *

Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.


He appears to be a militant atheist. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, except that you're not supposed to try to use Wikipedia to promote your activism. I'm sure Wikipedia's administration will be correcting the problem any minute now.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Fri 4th February 2011, 3:26pm
Post #106


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 3rd February 2011, 3:37pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 3rd February 2011, 10:12pm) *

Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.


He appears to be a militant atheist. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, except that you're not supposed to try to use Wikipedia to promote your activism. I'm sure Wikipedia's administration will be correcting the problem any minute now.

Hrafn's quite the charming individual, that's for sure. Their watchlist must be massive by this point. I have no idea how someone could have that much time on their hands.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kwork
post Fri 4th February 2011, 4:54pm
Post #107


Senior Member
****

Group: Special Contributors
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat 23rd Jan 2010, 3:47pm
Member No.: 16,782



QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 3rd February 2011, 10:12pm) *

Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.

I had an encounter or two with Hrafn, and I tend to agree with his POV. The problem is that he wants to be sure that nobody misses his point. For instance, if I were editing that particular biographical article, I would stop at saying in the lead at: "David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American educator and author of several books on mathematics. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." The stuff about intelligent design could come later. After all it seems that the man has done other things, some of them perhaps of value. There is plenty of time to discuss the intelligent design nonsense later.

It is a common problem on WP. Its like the Bobby Fisher article. Sure the guy was a jerk, but since he was famous as a great chess player, there is no need to put his personality problems in the lead. But in the Bobby Fisher article it is a long lead, and the negative stuff comes at the end, so its not so bad. Hrafn is pushing to get the most problematic stuff about David Berlinski right in the first sentence, and that seems unnecessary.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Fri 4th February 2011, 7:23pm
Post #108


Chameleon
*****

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kwork @ Fri 4th February 2011, 4:54pm) *




For my pains I watched the debate Berlinski had with Hitchens last year. Totally unconvincing and Hitchens slapped him about quite thoroughly. Berlinski may well be a leading critic of evolution, but that doesn't make him a leader of the ID movement.

There are hearsay accounts of Berlinski saying that he does it because the IDM pays well. He's a high class intellectual whore, but Hrafn is too much into his ID hate to realise that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 4th February 2011, 8:05pm
Post #109


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kwork @ Fri 4th February 2011, 8:54am) *
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 3rd February 2011, 10:12pm) *
Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.
I had an encounter or two with Hrafn, and I tend to agree with his POV. The problem is that he wants to be sure that nobody misses his point.

Hrafn is not an "atheist", he is a raving, drooling lunatic. You were confused into thinking he was an honest atheist, because his abusive activities are so erratic.

(He tagteams with Cirt occasionally. Plus, he spends a lot of time grooming the Unification Church articles,
thus making himself sometimes look like a rabid conservative. I was confused by this too. He's just rabid.)

Some crackpots love Miley Cyrus, some crackpots love Sonic the Hedgehog, and some crackpots love ID/creationism. It's just a focus for their OCD, the actual subject matter isn't relevant.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 4th February 2011, 8:10pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 4th February 2011, 10:28pm
Post #110


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Just got a reminder that Moulton repeatedly outed Hrafn back in 2007-08.
The David Berlinski article has been a battleground for a long time.

Read his website.
Go ahead, explain to the rest of us what his "religious beliefs" really are.

Like far too many Wikipediots, in the 1990s he was trolling the nerdiest possible subjects on Usenet.
Fave subjects: comic books, RPGs, TV shows, and psychiatric typology.

Now, is that the face of a Wikipedia troll, or not?........ tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6
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: 27th 11 14, 5:24am