I disagree that a person can not see the mote in his own eye so to speak.
I generally know when I'm being biased and if you don't know then research,
logic and truth can soon find it more often than not.
I think the important thing is to have integrity or at least a desire for
integrity/truth
John Berry wrote:
An encyclopedia can either give a biased answer/opinion/pov/conclusion that
the reader should ignore, or give no answer/opinion/pov/conclusion
presenting all sides letting reader choose.
I do not believe it is possible for anyone to have an unbiased point of
view, or even to
At 06:41 PM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
It's really an aspect of the problem of scale. Those who could do
something about it are overwhelmed and must make snap judgments, so
when an issue is complex, really bad decisions are made.
This is true, and it is
John Berry wrote:
The article on cold fusion is (without checking I feel confident in
saying) decent.
I'm sure many well established physicists would agree with it.
Naa. It is indecent.
Seriously, I will grant it is thorough, but it is so filled with
unfounded, torturously argued skeptical
But that's my point, it's decent as an article and for a biased piece of
crap it's a shining example.
My point is only that it would get the tick of approval of say Parksie (I
assume) or any other pathological skeptic.
It's not of poor quality and you agreed that Britanica is worse.
If Nature
John Berry wrote:
I think the only issue is that people would assume that Wikipedia may be
free of the influences of corruption, power and academic dishonestly to a
greater extent than the above and oddly it is not, that's the issue not the
quality but the bias and only because Wikipedia
Interestingly if you pitched the idea of Wikipedia to anyone before it
existed and assured them there would be enough interest, the main objection
would be that there would be too much freedom and that it would be full of
far too much crazy out there and just plain moronic info.
Instead of
On 01/27/2010 12:57 AM, Steven Krivit wrote:
At 02:27 PM 1/26/2010, you wrote:
Just ignore it. Don't mess with free speech.
I am editing papers for a REAL encyclopedia. Every once in a while
authors will submit papers that include references to Wikipedia. I tell
them all that such
It’s been my experience that whenever a subject being researched is
initially perceived in black white terms, there seems to be a
tendency to filter the sources. In such cases it doesn’t seem to
matter all that much what sources one uses as “references.”
As the old saying goes: Get a second
Steven Krivit wrote:
I am editing papers for a REAL encyclopedia. Every once in a while
authors will submit papers that include references to Wikipedia. I
tell them all that such references are unacceptable. End of story.
I have edited many books and papers. I might suggest that an authors
At 10:35 AM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There was a well publicized comparison made of Britannica versus
Wikipedia a few years ago. Conclusion:
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as
Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world
around us,
I recommend Wikipedia be renamed to OAHpedia.
That's pronounced as: Oh Pedia *
* The OAH stands for occasionally accurate hearsay.
Do I hear a second?
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
On 01/27/2010 04:48 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
I recommend Wikipedia be renamed to OAHpedia.
That's pronounced as: Oh Pedia *
* The OAH stands for occasionally accurate hearsay.
Do I hear a second?
If you care enough to check sources, an awful lot of the facts in
Stephen sez:
I recommend Wikipedia be renamed to OAHpedia.
That's pronounced as: Oh Pedia *
* The OAH stands for occasionally accurate hearsay.
Do I hear a second?
If you care enough to check sources, an awful lot of the facts in
Wikipedia are referenced to external sources.
That's
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
It's really an aspect of the problem of scale. Those who could do
something about it are overwhelmed and must make snap judgments, so
when an issue is complex, really bad decisions are made.
This is true, and it is difficult problem. Sometimes, this is what
causes
This is my preferred encyclopedia:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page
http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article088.htm
Wikipedia Doesn't Like Me ...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010
Wikipedia's General Counsel, Mike Godwin, is sending me nasty emails.
Apparently he doesn't like me telling people how bad
Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
Subject: [Vo]:Contropedia
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 8:42 AM
http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article088.htm
Wikipedia Doesn't Like Me ...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010
Wikipedia's
I agree with this guy Bolen that many Wikipedia articles are
anti-intellectual, but filing suits against Wikipeida is WAY over the
line. That is not how to respond! Just ignore it. Don't mess with free speech.
In a few cases vandals at Wikipedia defamed people. I think they have
put in place
On 01/26/2010 05:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
These people are extremists but so are the editors of the Scientific
American, the Executive Director of the AIP and many others. Filing
lawsuits would not improve this situation even if it were not a
violation of free speech.
They're not the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
THAT is what Free Speech is about -- not about your right to get
your message
out on the Internet free of interference from private individuals
who disagree with you.
However, private individuals and corporations cannot interfere with
web sites they do not own.
As they say, You vote with your dollar.
I used to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia; but, have reduced my
contributions significantly because there seem to be people who spend
their day full time defending their positions. I can only wonder who
is paying them.
It is no longer me.
T
At 02:27 PM 1/26/2010, you wrote:
Just ignore it. Don't mess with free speech.
I am editing papers for a REAL encyclopedia. Every once in a while authors
will submit papers that include references to Wikipedia. I tell them all
that such references are unacceptable. End of story.
s
23 matches
Mail list logo
