There is an interesting article in the NY Times on issues related to determining the origins of certain types of "knowledge", such as Allen points out below in the Freud cigar situation. However, the argument that is made in the article, in the context of evaluating information on Wikipedia, is that requiring one to provide a source for some "knowledge" is a reflection of "a Western, male-dominated mindset similar to the perspective behind the encyclopedias it has replaced." See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26
The article focuses on discussions concerning the use of printed sources to support statements and claims made on Wikipedia (NOTE: for those who have not been paying attention, when I use the shorthand "yadda-yadda" for "standard disclaimers apply", I am in fact referring to the problem of determining the accuracy of information in a Wikipedia entry). The argument is that many cultures have no printed records for certain activities and if one were to try to create an entry that is a "first person" or "hearsay" account, such entries would not be allowed even though it might be useful (this means that Wikipedia is the primary source for the information). The article appears not to understand that the purpose of, say, peer-reviewed journals is to provide a review and critical analysis of empirical research reports (from observational to lab-based experiments) and scholarly reviews of a literature or presentation of a theory. We can always argue about the quality of peer-review and the need to put certain "knowledge" on the record but is it really a good idea to use Wikipedia as the first place of publication? In an internet age where "knowledge" is just a Google away, young people may think that quickly available information is the same thing as valid information. If everyone knows that Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" or that he used the iceberg as a metaphor for the mind, why would anyone challenge these claims? If it's on the internet, it has to be true, right? Especially, if a lot of people agree with the statements made. One might use this article in class to review how we determine whether a source is credible or not and how to evaluate statements that purport to be valid representations of reality. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu ------------------------- Original Message ------------------------ On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 02:04:32 -0700, Allen Esterson wrote: While trying to track down online a 1938 BBC interview with Freud that featured in a recent TV documentary I came across another one that TIPSters may find informative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1tL_iT3Rw0 Incidental point on dubious attribution: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." No source has ever been found for this. Re-checking online I came across the following: "I've done some research on this attributed quotation in the past. The best I was able to come up with is that it was attributed to Freud by one of his students (in an interview). However, I don't have the source of that information available. Now if anyone could trace that elusive quote about the mind being an iceberg (etc etc), that would make my day -- the iceberg reference comes up _everywhere_ and I've never been able to find it. -- Casper H. (n...@nonono.com), September 12, 2003." http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BGBz Longterm TIPSters will be familiar with second item mentioned here. :-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=11799 or send a blank email to leave-11799-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
