Truth vs bullshit

[SimplyJakeAndAlex]

Wikepedia a starting point

I consider wikipedia a good staring point to research Info, if I find that something is wrong... such as last time when I found that they decided that poutine was Canada's national dish, I sent a correction review with proof on hand that poutine was primarily known to East Canadians, Quebec and Ontario and thus cannot be called a national dish... I haven't checked if they removed it, but I'm sure they will. I will quote GB in my own words: information need to be chewed, re-chewed and chewed again before digesting. But in a long run I do refer quite often to Wiki and will go and confirm on my more specific books or other source of information I might have at hand.

Unlike some wannabe researcher I do not stop my study on one prove only, I need a background, a present and if there is a future on the subject or the person I study before coming with a plausible verdict (note the "plausible" statement, this means I still leave place for questioning).

 

[hawtsean]

Unlike some wannabe researcher I do not stop my study on one prove only, I need a background, a present and if there is a future on the subject or the person I study before coming with a plausible verdict (note the "plausible" statement, this means I still leave place for questioning).

That's much the way I use wiki - as just one source of many, and my own intellect as the sort gate.

 

[iryhousen]

For instance, I don't have a particle accelerator. I'd like to, but I don't. Those things are expensive. So when a physicist tells me that he's discovered a quark in his particle accelerator, and a bunch of other physicists go, "yeah, he totally discovered one. I saw it too." I believe them. I could break into Brookhaven National Lab and do the experiment myself in the dead of night, but that seems excessive and dangerous and illegal

Sheogoroth, I thought that was hilarious. It sounds like something from The Big Bang Theory, one of my favorite shows.

I find Wikipedia to be mostly a waste of time. It's almost all information that people have taken from other pages on the internet that you could find with a good search engine. I use Dogpile. Wikipedia is useful for some historical information, and the way that articles are linked to each other makes it easy to navigate, but you're not going to find more detail on a subject that you already know pretty well.

 

[gb2000ie]

I find Wikipedia to be mostly a waste of time. It's almost all information that people have taken from other pages on the internet that you could find with a good search engine. I use Dogpile. Wikipedia is useful for some historical information, and the way that articles are linked to each other makes it easy to navigate, but you're not going to find more detail on a subject that you already know pretty well.

But wikipedia is not FOR looking up stuff that you already know, it's for getting a basic idea about something you don't know!

Reading the Encyclopaedia Britanica will give you no more information that Wikipedia will, and often times it will actually give you a lot less. Wikipedia is not trying to be a place that knows everything about something, it's trying to be a place that knows something about everything.

Personally, I use it all the time. If I'm watching a doentary and I hear mention of a battle I've never heard of, I'll go look it up. E.g., as an Irish person we don't learn much US history so I heard a mention of Fort Sumter in a period drama my Mum was watching when I walked into the room and was curious - a few minutes of reading on wikipedia later, I was able to put the whole scene into it's proper context - the start of the American Civil War.

Similarly, if I hear a place mentioned that I don't know anything about Wikipedia is wonderful! Every small little town and village seems to have an entry.

Also, I'm very into railroad history, and I've yet to come across a single better source of starter information for any station or line that I'm researching at the time.

Simiarly - if you want to get a primer on any medical condition, or a scientific concept, or if you need a definition of something like say Entropy, wikipedia is perfect.

Finally - have a read of the references on most wikipedia articles, they are generally not to other websites, but mostly to books and academic papers.

Finally finally, even if there information were all from the web (which it isn't), having it curated into a well structured doent is still immensely valuable!

B.

 

[hawtsean]

But wikipedia is not FOR looking up stuff that you already know, it's for getting a basic idea about something you don't know!

Personally, I use it all the time.

Similarly, if I hear a place mentioned that I don't know anything about Wikipedia is wonderful!

Also, I'm very into railroad history, and I've yet to come across a single better source of starter information

Simiarly - if you want to get a primer on any medical condition,

Finally - have a read of the references on most wikipedia articles, they are generally not to other websites, but mostly to books and academic papers.

Finally finally, even if there information were all from the web (which it isn't), having it curated into a well structured doent is still immensely valuable!

B.

Hmmm, did someone stab Bart with a Wiki syringe?:rofl::rofl:

Seriously, all of this can be so, and with my expressed reservations about search caching and the general "accept everything without checking" attitude, I am a tough guy to convince of the multiplicity of wiki-benefits. But let's say that wikipedia is all that is claimed for it. Are there any other wiki-type sites that are as careful and well-curated?

 

[iryhousen]

Finally - have a read of the references on most wikipedia articles, they are generally not to other websites, but mostly to books and academic papers. Finally finally, even if there information were all from the web (which it isn't), having it curated into a well structured doent is still immensely valuable!

Does Wikipedia have permission to copy and publish any of that material from books and academic papers? What they do isn't even allowed in an internet political discussion forum where I used to participate.

 

[gb2000ie]

Does Wikipedia have permission to copy and publish any of that material from books and academic papers? What they do isn't even allowed in an internet political discussion forum where I used to participate.

Yes, it is 100% LEGAL!

EVERYONE is allowed to CITE sources of information. That is what academia is! It is illegal to present someone else's work as your own, but it is "fair use" to cite portions of a work as part of another work.

Wikipedia does not copy and paste en-mass from books or research articles, it references them, and quotes the odd line here and there, usually from the conclusions for obvious reasons.

What you see on wikipedia is what every university student is supposed to do - gather information from many sources, and synthesise it into a single coherent and referenced summary.

Wikipedia is not breaking the law.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

Hmmm, did someone stab Bart with a Wiki syringe?:rofl::rofl:

Seriously, all of this can be so, and with my expressed reservations about search caching and the general "accept everything without checking" attitude, I am a tough guy to convince of the multiplicity of wiki-benefits. But let's say that wikipedia is all that is claimed for it. Are there any other wiki-type sites that are as careful and well-curated?

I work in academia, so wikipedia is a controversy that arises a lot in my day-job. That means it's something I both think and talk about a lot.

As for your questions, of courses there are other sites that curate information, often in much more detail, but they tend to be subject specific. There are loads of sites that massively out-strip wikipedia in depth, but I'm not aware of anything that rivals wikipedia in breadth.

B.

 

[slimjim]

It's true that "there is no one overseeing Wikipedia to ensure that only correct facts are posted."

Dammit... you mean that David Beckham is NOT an 18th century Chinese goalkeeper:worried:... and Robbie Williams DID NOT make his pre-Take That living by eating domestic pets in pubs:no:... and Tony Blair's middle name IS NOT "Whoop-De-Doo"

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

The word "bullshit" used in the context of this thread is interesting. A few years ago someone wrote a semi-serious small book called "The Art of Bullshit" or something like that, He defines bullshitting as something different from simply asserting things that are false. In a nutshell, he says that to bullshit is to speak with complete disregard for the truth. When someone bullshits, what they say may be true, but the truth or falsity is more or less incidental, and it's not why they say it - they say it for any one of a number of reasons that have nothing to do with debate and proof. They may be wanting to give the impression of being knowledgeable on a subject by talking at length about it; because they like the sound of their own voice or have a compulsion to talk all the time; to stir up controversy; or simply to draw attention to themselves.

Something like Nazi wartime propaganda is not bullshit, by this definition. It is the deliberate spreading of misinformation. A bullshitter might say they know where the battleship Bismarck will be on a certain date, and it might happen to be true, but they are only saying it because they have an exaggerated sense of their own cleverness. A propaganda broadcast would never say that the Bismarck was going to be at such-and-such a location at a certain time, if that was in fact where it would be.

 

[hawtsean]

The word "bullshit" used in the context of this thread is interesting.

I recall reading an excerpt from the book you mention. It was funny and enlightening. In this thread that I created, I use the term bullshit to denote any misrepresentation, misinformation and/or incorrect citation of facts - whether done intentionally to misdirect or misinform, or fraudulently engage belief in a point of view or rationale; or unintentionally due to gross error on the part of the bullshitter.

A bullshitter might say they know where the battleship Bismarck will be on a certain date, and it might happen to be true, but they are only saying it because they have an exaggerated sense of their own cleverness.

Isn't that how so-called fortune tellers, psychics and their lot operate? (along with heightened skills of social engineering)


And that, dude, ain't no shit!