Long live our glorious leader.

[DeeBye]

One might make a reference to ISBN 0-19-213965-7 "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions", Page 417

I checked to see if that was an accurate ISBN#, and that "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions" was more than 416 pages:)

With the internet, all things are researchable in about 10 seconds.

[kandrathe]

I checked to see if that was an accurate ISBN#, and that "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions" was more than 416 pages:)

With the internet, all things are researchable in about 10 seconds.

Yes, but would you know the organization founded by Yogi Bhajan and the special merit of Kundalini Yoga?

This is the dawning of the age of ...

:) Wikipedia has much more about him than the Oxford Dictionary.

[eppie]

My 7th grade son isn't even allowed to use Wikipedia as the basis for anything in school.

Please tell us the reason why your son isn't allowed to use wikipedia. You suggest it is because of the supposed bad quality of the articles and that you can't be sure things written ar true, but I think the reason is different.
Namely, if children need to write a report on, say WW2, they can go in wikipedia and copy/paste the whole article. Of course schools won't allow this; the child needs to learn to do research for getting his information, not just use his computer skills.
The same thinsg goes for not using calculators in elementarry school mathematics.....o yes, the answers will be right, but you don't learn anything.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Namely, if children need to write a report on, say WW2, they can go in wikipedia and copy/paste the whole article. Of course schools won't allow this; the child needs to learn to do research for getting his information, not just use his computer skills.

The old saw goes: "If you copy from one source, it's plagiarism; if you copy from many, it's research." Thus, your argument logically leads to the abolishment of all sources, since one can plagiarize from any of them. No, the problem is laziness on the parts of the teachers (it takes a lot of work to determine if something is plagiarized) and the attitude that some things need to be hard.

The same thinsg goes for not using calculators in elementarry school mathematics.....o yes, the answers will be right, but you don't learn anything.

If you are talking about learning arithmetic, then I agree with you although many others don't. If you are really speaking of mathematics, then the use of calculators doesn't matter.

And returning to the Wiki question, yes, I did reference two Wiki articles. Each addresses the properties of the word I used in the link. And both are very accurate. Consider that a practical refutation.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
The old saw goes: "If you copy from one source, it's plagiarism; if you copy from many, it's research." Thus, your argument logically leads to the abolishment of all sources, since one can plagiarize from any of them. No, the problem is laziness on the parts of the teachers (it takes a lot of work to determine if something is plagiarized) and the attitude that some things need to be hard.

If children can use Wikipedia, the teachers job to find out if something is plagiarized* is easy....because 9 out of 10 will have used wikipedia. So this case is not about teachers laziness.

And wikipedia is not just the source. It contains high school paper size articles with a nice introduction, summary, and paragraph structure, perfect for copy pasting. We are talking about childrens reports....the saying you quote for sure doesn't have that in mind.

Anyway, I am still waiting for shoju's answer on the question, why exactly wikipedia could not be used.

If you are talking about learning arithmetic, then I agree with you although many others don't. If you are really speaking of mathematics, then the use of calculators doesn't matter.

And returning to the Wiki question, yes, I did reference two Wiki articles. Each addresses the properties of the word I used in the link. And both are very accurate. Consider that a practical refutation.

--Pete

Yes I meant arithmetics. Of course you can use a calculator in more complicated stuff.


* I would just use copied in the case of childrens reports:)

[--Pete]

Hi,

We are talking about childrens reports....the saying you quote for sure doesn't have that in mind.

Actually, yes it does. It is generally true. The whole concept of researching a topic is to get multiple inputs, preferably presenting opposing viewpoints, and to use that information to arrive at a personal opinion on that topic.

Anyway, I am still waiting for shoju's answer on the question, why exactly wikipedia could not be used.

That presupposes that he knows. It could well be that only the person who established the policy knows the true reason. And even he may be rationalizing rather than being rational. It could be as simple as a Luddite being in charge.

* I would just use copied in the case of childrens reports:)

'Copied' implies a verbatim process. But taking a report, rewriting it in one's own words, and passing it as an original work is not copying, but it is still plagiarism.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I think... If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then the ducks take notice.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/metro/2009-09...ent_8707133.htm

[Jester]

I think... If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then the ducks take notice.

Stylin' design. Now he can join my other favourite subversive, Shigeru Miyamoto.

Re-purposing old communist iconography is classic fun. Some people have made whole careers of it.

-Jester

[shoju]

Wikipedia is IMO, the worst thing to ever happen to the collection of knowledge. I'm not saying that the old hardback encyclopedias are the way to go either. I welcome and embrace the digital age, and the 'idea' of wikipedia. An evergrowing library of knowledge for the masses. It should be an amazing thing. Sadly, I see wikipedia as a punchline to a sad joke than anything else.

Yes, a lot of times, Wikipedia can be ok, and it has its uses I guess, but the simple fact that I can go over there right now, and change the history of WWII to whatever I want it to be, leads to the basis of the problem. There is no filter to make sure that you are posting unbiased, factual information. There is no filter to make sure that articles like the one that was linked are based in FACT and not written with biased sensationalist motives. It works on all sides of the issue as well. Knowledge differs from anything else because of the absence of a noticeable opinion. Knowledge is the accumulated facts about something. Merging knowledge and opinion leads to inaccuracies, and it isn't relegated to just wikipedia. Far more sacred things have been muddled by opinions and biased revisions.

I guess it is the one thing on the net that will get me riled up anymore. When I first found Wikipedia so many years ago, I immediately though of Winston in 1984. The first thing out of my mouth was:

"Revisionist History here we come"

The fact that the article linked was there is proof of the failings and trappings of Wikipedia. If you can find it on Wikipedia, and it is truthful, factual, and at least marginally unbiased, then you should be able to find it at/on more respectable sources else as well.

[Jester]

Yes, a lot of times, Wikipedia can be ok, and it has its uses I guess, but the simple fact that I can go over there right now, and change the history of WWII to whatever I want it to be, leads to the basis of the problem. There is no filter to make sure that you are posting unbiased, factual information. There is no filter to make sure that articles like the one that was linked are based in FACT and not written with biased sensationalist motives.

But this ignores the self-correcting nature of Wikipedia - the filter is other people. I could go change the article for Mr. Snuffleuppagus to imply that he was the love child of Confucius and Bridgitte Bardot, but my edits wouldn't last more than a handful of minutes before some helpful Wikipedian reverted my edit. What I can do to the article, the community can do right back, and most well-established articles have their guardian angels.

For topics where there is no such thing as a solid source or verifiable information or where opinions are sharply divided along predetermined lines, you get edit/revert wars that cause serious problems. Wikipedia's failings are most obvious in those cases. But, those are areas where conventional sources of knowledge are also problematic. Who exactly can you trust to be unbiased enough to wade into the political fracas of something like the Israel/Palestine conflict and emerge with unvarnished facts? Even on technical topics you can get into slugging matches over preferred interpretations.

Wikipedia is quick, all-encompassing, online, searchable, and hyperlinked. It's smaller and more accessible than a library, and less scattergun than google. Until something else has those advantages, the Wiki is still going to be my first stop for introductory information on most topics.

The Wiki is not 1984. Wikipedia cannot be controlled by an individual or party. Nobody has a monopoly on the information presented there. There is no boot stamping on Wikipedia, forever. The failings of Wikipedia are collective failings - sometimes, the majority just isn't right, and wrong opinions can seem factual and convincing. But it's just not possible to establish and defend a persistently revisionist interpretation on a wiki article without other wikipedians hitting right back with a different interpretation.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Knowledge differs from anything else because of the absence of a noticeable opinion. Knowledge is the accumulated facts about something. Merging knowledge and opinion leads to inaccuracies, and it isn't relegated to just wikipedia.

In fact, the only thing we can know (according to your use of 'knowledge') is our individual personal existence ("Cogito ergo sum.") Everything else is based on unprovable assumptions. The 'evidence' of our senses is based on our senses, and therefore cannot be proven except circularly. So, ultimately, you may or may not exist, but I respond to you because, in my opinion, you *do* exist.

If you can find it on Wikipedia, and it is truthful, factual, and at least marginally unbiased, . . .

Then why not use it?

. . . then you should be able to find it at/on more respectable sources else as well.

And how will you know the source is more respectable without doing the same research as you would have to do to verify the Wiki article? The Web is full of misinformation from 'reputable' sources -- such as the famous food pyramid of the Department of Agriculture.

If it matters, research it, if it doesn't, don't sweat it.

--Pete

[Delc]

The fact that the article linked was there is proof of the failings and trappings of Wikipedia. If you can find it on Wikipedia, and it is truthful, factual, and at least marginally unbiased, then you should be able to find it at/on more respectable sources else as well.

So basically its the same as any other encyclopedia?

[Klaus]

Wikipedia is IMO, the worst thing to ever happen to the collection of knowledge. I'm not saying that the old hardback encyclopedias are the way to go either. I welcome and embrace the digital age, and the 'idea' of wikipedia. An evergrowing library of knowledge for the masses. It should be an amazing thing. Sadly, I see wikipedia as a punchline to a sad joke than anything else.

Yes, a lot of times, Wikipedia can be ok, and it has its uses I guess, but the simple fact that I can go over there right now, and change the history of WWII to whatever I want it to be, leads to the basis of the problem. There is no filter to make sure that you are posting unbiased, factual information. There is no filter to make sure that articles like the one that was linked are based in FACT and not written with biased sensationalist motives. It works on all sides of the issue as well. Knowledge differs from anything else because of the absence of a noticeable opinion. Knowledge is the accumulated facts about something. Merging knowledge and opinion leads to inaccuracies, and it isn't relegated to just wikipedia. Far more sacred things have been muddled by opinions and biased revisions.

I guess it is the one thing on the net that will get me riled up anymore. When I first found Wikipedia so many years ago, I immediately though of Winston in 1984. The first thing out of my mouth was:

"Revisionist History here we come"

The fact that the article linked was there is proof of the failings and trappings of Wikipedia. If you can find it on Wikipedia, and it is truthful, factual, and at least marginally unbiased, then you should be able to find it at/on more respectable sources else as well.

Most quality wiki articles include a bibliography of references. If you doubt the veracity of what you read, you can check the references, do your own research. It's a great place to get an overview of a topic and a starting list of materials where you can learn more. If it's important enough, this will lead you to even more resources that aren't listed on the wiki, and you can decide for yourself what "truth" is. But Jester is correct - if you update the WWII page to say that "No Jews were harmed during the making of this conflict", someone will correct it right quick.

Finally, most articles are about topics that nobody cares to "revise" (except in the manner of unfocused valdalism). If I want to know the history of Guy Fawkes Day, I don't expect there's some nutjob out there trying to convince me it was some sort of coverup for an alien landing...

[eppie]

Finally, most articles are about topics that nobody cares to "revise" (except in the manner of unfocused valdalism). If I want to know the history of Guy Fawkes Day, I don't expect there's some nutjob out there trying to convince me it was some sort of coverup for an alien landing...

Remember, remember the fifth of November, the day the earth was under attack.

[kandrathe]

If you can find it on Wikipedia, and it is truthful, factual, and at least marginally unbiased, then you should be able to find it at/on more respectable sources else as well.

I think rather than having History being written by elite professors and spoon fed to elite students, we rather have a more democratic process of who writes history and who reads it. The only measure of who can participate now is access to a computer and the internet, articles that are poorly written or nonfactual will be improved or eliminated through step-wise refinement. What gets written about is de-facto what the society cares enough about to write.

Beyond that... History is rife with tomes of knowledge later found to be filled with errors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudodoxia_Epidemica

I feel that truth is a journey, rather than a destination. Each of us need to be willing to challenge our own biased understanding of truth.