I see it that way too. It is sufficient that if such questions arise
and are published, then we report on them.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, wrote:
> mill...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, wrote:
>> > Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrel
Let's have our readers vote.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jay...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
> > studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scienti
In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
> The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
> studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific reviews.
> Also, they do not dissect the data based on the reputability of th
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM, wrote:
>..
> There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were not paid for, by
> anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the drug's market outlook.
> Being flippant as John was, hardly forwards the conversation.
The point I was making is that ther
> On 01/11/2010 18:40, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
>>> studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6
>>> of
>>> those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
>>> basically how it was, I
On 01/11/2010 18:40, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
>> studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
>> those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
>> basically how it was, I think. It
> Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
> studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
> those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
> basically how it was, I think. It is common knowledge that manufacture
> funde
Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
basically how it was, I think. It is common knowledge that manufacture
funded research
In a message dated 11/1/2010 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > jay...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> > > > In a mes
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jay...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> > > In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > risker...@gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >> My poin
In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > risker...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pa
mill...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, wrote:
> > Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant
> > details so why not pollute this class of article too?
> >
> > Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a
> > number of
--- On Mon, 1/11/10, Risker wrote:
> > You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to
> be changing the
> > subject. Peer review decides what is to be published,
> based on quality
> > and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold
> views as to what
> > that is at any particular time
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, wrote:
> Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant
> details so why not pollute this class of article too?
>
> Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a
> number of research results are saying that X i
On 01/11/2010 06:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 00:02, David Goodman wrote:
>> But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
>> manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
>> specify--and almost none specified in the past.
>
> Inform
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 00:02, David Goodman wrote:
> But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
> manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
> specify--and almost none specified in the past.
Information about who funded research is just one more
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> risker...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research.
>> Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
>>
>
>
> This
In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research.
> Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
>
This is false. The drug company does not always pay for
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Arlen Beiler wrote:
> One thing I ran into was Sucrolose. Manufacture tests had concluded it had
> no side effects, while independent studies rattled off the side effects like
> an auctioneer (not quite that bad, but there were a lot).
How were the manufacturer tes
One thing I ran into was Sucrolose. Manufacture tests had concluded it had
no side effects, while independent studies rattled off the side effects like
an auctioneer (not quite that bad, but there were a lot).
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 31 October 2010 21:53, Fred Baude
On 31 October 2010 21:53, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is
> >> mentioned
> >> > it
> >> > is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
> >> > required.
> >> >
> On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>
>> > I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is
>> mentioned
>> > it
>> > is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
>> > required.
>> >
>> > Risker/Anne
>>
>> The history of this issue has involved ma
On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned
> > it
> > is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
> > required.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
>
> The history of this issue has involved manufacturers tak
> I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned
> it
> is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
> required.
>
> Risker/Anne
The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of
the studies to the extent that unfavorable resul
On 31 October 2010 21:07, wrote:
> In a message dated 10/31/2010 4:02:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
> > manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
> > specify--and a
In a message dated 10/31/2010 4:02:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
> But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
> manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
> specify--and almost none specified in the past. >>
>
That
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> On 31 Oct 2010, at 23:08, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected
>> journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel
>> comfortable that the study has been accepte
On 31 Oct 2010, at 23:08, John Vandenberg wrote:
> We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected
> journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel
> comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic
> community.
The citation count isn't the
Still, it is quite well known that manufacture funded studies come up more
often than not with entirely different results than if they are not funded
by the manufacture.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Goodman
> wrote:
> > But the
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
> manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
> specify--and almost none specified in the past.
Following on from David, the funding should not matt
But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
specify--and almost none specified in the past.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> > Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 20:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I am really puzzled by the resistance to naming funding sources in
> Wikipedia.
This is the part of post-modernist shit or nicely called
"post-modernist relativism". You know, the world is so big, we don't
understand nothing and we are not rel
> > Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way
> beyond our scope.
> > This is a matter for professional journals, not an
> unauthoritative
> > reader-edited encyclopedia >>
> >
>
> Yes, giving our readers the actual tools with which they
> can make informed
> decisions is beyond our s
In a message dated 10/31/2010 10:04:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
> Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way beyond our scope.
> This is a matter for professional journals, not an unauthoritative
> reader-edited encyclopedia >>
>
Yes, giving our readers
> Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way beyond our scope.
> This is a matter for professional journals, not an unauthoritative
> reader-edited encyclopedia
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
It is the intention of some of us to both remain
Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way beyond our scope.
This is a matter for professional journals, not an unauthoritative
reader-edited encyclopedia
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> > I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study
>> >
>> > http://medicine.plosj
> > I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study
> >
> > http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095
> >
> > criticises media reports for citing studies and
> experts with financial ties
> > to manufacturers, without disclosing these ties to the
> r
On 26 October 2010 20:49, George Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:38 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> There's a place for applied engineer hubris[1]. With due caution.
>> [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/engineers%20and%20woo
> (grump)
> While generally true, there's a lack of regard there
In a message dated 10/26/2010 1:14:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
slimvir...@gmail.com writes:
> This is the kind of test of our accuracy we really don't want. :)
>
There you go using that "A" word again.
W
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@l
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 13:38, David Gerard wrote:
> On 26 October 2010 20:30, Michael Snow wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>
>>> I *facepalm*ed. ENGINEER HUBRIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR!
>
>> No, but it's what much of Wikipedia was written with.
>
This is the kind of test of our accuracy we re
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:38 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> There's a place for applied engineer hubris[1]. With due caution.
>
> - d.
>
> [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/engineers%20and%20woo
(grump)
While generally true, there's a lack of regard there for
engineering-oriented polymaths.
--
-ge
On 26 October 2010 20:30, Michael Snow wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> I *facepalm*ed. ENGINEER HUBRIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR!
> No, but it's what much of Wikipedia was written with.
+1
Actually, it was the computer stuff that was the first area of
Wikipedia that I found actually useful
David Gerard wrote:
> Forget medical information. How about making a plane that won't fall
> out of thesky?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/kenya-plane-homemade
>
> I *facepalm*ed. ENGINEER HUBRIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR!
>
No, but it's what much of Wikipedia was written wit
Forget medical information. How about making a plane that won't fall
out of thesky?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/kenya-plane-homemade
I *facepalm*ed. ENGINEER HUBRIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR!
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foun
In a message dated 10/25/2010 2:12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> Superb. I was wondering when someone would actually say this. It is the
> point I made right at the beginning of all of this. That the drug pages
> should not be reflecting some controversy. >
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:54 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 14:19, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> We would not allow the people who make Coca Cola to be our sole
>>> sources on whether it's safe, or on whether we all ought to b
On 25/10/2010 21:54, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 14:19, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> We would not allow the people who make Coca Cola to be our sole
>>> sources on whether it's safe, or on whether we all ought to be
>>> drinkin
On 25/10/2010 21:19, George Herbert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 16:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
> scholarly l
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 14:19, George Herbert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> We would not allow the people who make Coca Cola to be our sole
>> sources on whether it's safe, or on whether we all ought to be
>> drinking it. But when it comes to drugs and scientists,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 16:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature ar
In a message dated 10/24/2010 10:58:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
> This is not a mechanical
> process. It is editing in the true sense of the word: it takes
> judgement, it takes takes research-- things we have been claiming are
> against our basic principles. >>
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study
>
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095
>
> criticises media reports for citing studies and experts with financial ties
> to manufacturers, w
> > Can you address the issue of
> vested interests? If a drug
> > company has
> > financed all or most of the peer-reviewed work, your
> > argument is that
> > we should nevertheless reply on those studies
> exclusively,
> > and not
> > allow high-quality mainstream media who may be
> pointing to
> From: David Goodman
> Date: Monday, 25 October, 2010, 6:57
> Whether or not we want it to be,
> whether or not it ought to be,
> Wikipedia is being relied on. Our foundational principles
> do not
> control the outside world. What we have produced is
> being used as the
> nearest approach to a
Whether or not we want it to be, whether or not it ought to be,
Wikipedia is being relied on. Our foundational principles do not
control the outside world. What we have produced is being used as the
nearest approach to a reliable source most people are willing to look
for--and in many cases actua
Hello,
2010/10/25 Fred Bauder :
>
>> The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
>> it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
>> UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
>> emphasis. Some of the same people are current
In a message dated 10/24/2010 5:15:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you
> tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least
> get some here to think as to how one might pro
>
>> Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or
>> won't.
>
> The law routinely expects producers to add explicit safety warnings
> and disclaimers on their products for idiots who don't think for
> themselves.
>
> http://coolrain44.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/stupid-warning-
On 24/10/2010 23:48, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 23:40, wrote:
>
>> Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the
>> work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion,
>> whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies havi
On 24 October 2010 16:52, wrote:
> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
> information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
Our general disclaimer is good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Perhaps we should mention it on our introducti
> Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug
> company has
> financed all or most of the peer-reviewed work, your
> argument is that
> we should nevertheless reply on those studies exclusively,
> and not
> allow high-quality mainstream media who may be pointing to
> problems
> before
On 24 October 2010 23:40, wrote:
> Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the
> work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion,
> whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a
> site that boasts of containing the world
On 24/10/2010 21:12, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:58, wrote:
>> Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of
>> the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that
>> what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted
>> t
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 16:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>> And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
>>> scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature around.
>>
>> Can you address the issue of vested interests
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
>> scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature around.
>
> Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug company has
> financed all or most of the pe
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
> scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature around.
Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug company has
financed all or most of the peer-review
> Fighting them is a tremendous amount of work, and
> increasingly few people have the stomach for it.
>
> Sarah
>
Sarah,
We're talking about humans.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikim
> > They can argue, but if we keep our heads, they cannot
> overturn a founding
> > principle. As in the Atorvastatin article when
> patients are running to
> > their doctors, saying, "My God, I can't think", and it
> is observable by
> > medical practitioners that indeed they can't, it's a
> signi
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a
> murderer.
> There are mistak
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 13:57, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
>> it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
>> UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
>> emphasis. Some of the same
On 24 October 2010 21:17, Anthony wrote:
> No I haven't. I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that
> Wikipedia is not a fixed work. I also pointed out that even the
> Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia, it says that it is an "encyclopedia proj
If anyone is "relying" on Wikipedia, then they have a fundamental
disconnect from what we were and still are trying to do.
The entire point of Wikipedia today, is to make people think, not to stop
them from thinking.
That is why we now, for the first time in history, have a method, if it's
no
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>
>> Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an
>> encyclopedia.
>
> Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.
I saw your name and was ready for the usual resp
On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony wrote:
> No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say.
> And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is
> silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have
> explained, it isn't.
No you have explained t
On 24 October 2010 20:58, wrote:
> Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of
> the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that
> what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted
> to push some agenda.
And how does that
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
>>> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>>>
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
There are mistakes of facts, a
On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
>>> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd
>>> definitely e
On 24/10/2010 20:10, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
encyclopedias, which the research done on the subjec
> The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
> it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
> UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
> emphasis. Some of the same people are currently trying to change the
> sourcing pol
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
>
>> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
>> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd
>> definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd
> definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the
> traditional encyclopedias.
So your positi
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote:
> Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an
> encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.
http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259
"Yesterday I asked one of my students if she knew what
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
> No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational
> definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia".
Even Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia doesn't call Wikipedia an
encyclopedia, it calls it "a free, web-based, collaborative,
mu
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, geni wrote:
> Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in
> terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define
> "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that
> works with lower levels of reliability qualify as en
On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
>>> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
>>> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
>>
>> He is probably thi
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
>> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
>> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
>
> He is probably thinking about this:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, An
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Stick to what's actually occurring.
What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu
Virus
or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
encyclopedias, which the research done on the
On 24/10/2010 18:42, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
>>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
>>
>> One should use
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu
>>> Virus
>>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
>>
>> One should use accredited independent sources, whi
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>
>
> One should use accredited independent sources, which in the cas
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mit
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>>
>>> Well you could put a
On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:53:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information.
>> Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour,
>> h
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>
>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
>> information con
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>>
>>
>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
>> information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
>>
>
> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The
> information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
