Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby upriver » Fri May 09, 2008 6:37 pm

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby Solar » Fri May 09, 2008 6:59 pm

"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat May 10, 2008 5:36 am

Thanks for the post. It 's always worth keeping in perspective wikipedia's intellectual value.
This isn't the first time it's come under fire.

Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18 ... y_problem/

A Criticism of the Wikipedia
http://www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia.htm

http://www.ihatewikipedia.com/Wikipedia_Criticism.php
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby junglelord » Sat May 10, 2008 5:45 am

"Here lies a once great man, crammed and distorted by all that classical mess"
Bruce Lee.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby nick c » Sat May 10, 2008 11:10 am

I love Wikpedia, and use it all the time.
You have to realize its' limitations, it is a tool for the propagation of mainstream consensus.
In fact I just used it as I am writing, because I wasn't sure of the application of the word "propagation." When I looked up [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation]propagation[/url2] on Wikpedia, I liked the link to [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda]propaganda[/url2] and realized that it applied quite nicely :lol:

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby redeye » Mon May 12, 2008 6:49 am

I'd have to agree with Nick. It can be annoying if you spend some time writing or modifying an article and some a'hole arbitrarily deletes it, but it is still a useful resource. It's a great place to go if you want to get an idea of the bare bones of a concept.

I know people have issues with wiki's heavyhanded attitude towards fringe science but it's nice to be able to get the mainstream view of a subject quickly, and if you want a broader understanding or to check for opposing viewpoints it's easy enough to do this with a quick search of the internet.

It can be pretty funny too!

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby junglelord » Mon May 12, 2008 7:14 am

fringe science, thats a loaded term
:lol:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby StefanR » Mon May 12, 2008 8:01 am

published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations


What is reliable, and who decides what is reliable.
I have heard of people who wanted to change the wikipage about them and they where denied the changes
they made, although they could prove they were the person about whom the page was about. :shock:

Like you said Nick C, propagation-propaganda ;)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Wikipedia: The ultimate urban legend....

Unread postby MGmirkin » Wed May 14, 2008 5:59 pm

StefanR wrote:
published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations


What is reliable, and who decides what is reliable.
I have heard of people who wanted to change the wikipage about them and they where denied the changes
they made, although they could prove they were the person about whom the page was about. :shock:

Like you said Nick C, propagation-propaganda ;)


Yes, however, COI (Conflict Of Interest) rules make it difficult to edit one's own page. IE, one can't tell motive for adding or deleting content from one's own page. Is it to self-aggrandize, is it to remove deleterious but TRUE references? The idea is to portray the person as accurately as possible, without using the page as an unduly promotional or as a political [or otherwise] attack page. Eric Lerner has been banned from editing the article on Eric Lerner. Though, I think it was at least partly 'cause he threatened to sue people, which is generally a no-no in WP, even if there is CAUSE for a suit, as it's something of a breach in decorum. Preferred resolution being to talk it out rationally on the talk page, if one feels one has been misrepresented or that a statement is wrong or otherwise controversial. Rules on Biography of Living Persons (BLP) are relatively more strict than rules on other articles, sine they deal with living subjects and WP wishes to deal fairly with biographies, especially of people who are still alive and could be offended, or sue them. There are also other rules about not exposing personal information (address, ph#, financial information, SSNs, etc.), or other things which could lead to physical, financial or other harm to the person.

Just a few thoughts. In any event, if anyone wants to edit on WP, they should read though the various rules and guidelines. They come in handy. Likewise, wikiwarring or wikilawyering are also to be avoided, as wikipedian tend to frown on those things and they can get you put on probation, restricted from editing certain articles, or altogether banned. I'd generally advise against doing untoward things thereabouts. Doesn't do anyone any good.

One should try to cite "reliable/verifiable sources" (granted some people like to argue about "how reliable" or "how verifiable" or "how well-known" certain sources are, or rather claim that they're not). Things like peer-reviewed journal articles are generally considered to be best. But popular / well-respected magazines such as Astronomy, New Scientist, Nature, Discovery, and others may fall into this higher tier. Less reputable sources are generally to be avoided (personal web pages, blogs [except in the case where the blogger is well-respected / well known in the field under consideration], self-published materials, etc.).

Anyway, good times... WP has its ups and its downs. Non-controversial stuff can be relatively informative. Controversial articles often get out-of-hand. So, take it all with a grain of salt!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron