[MD] Tea Bagging

[118]

Hi Horse,
Thanks,
I am fully aware of the flexibility of Wiki.  There is indeed a board which
determines eligibility and accuracy.  It must be a huge board.  If I had the
time I could annotate, but it could then be annotated once again.  As you
say, it is a living document.  I have corrected google earth with some of
its addresses, so that an ambulance can accurately find my parents' house.
 But my interference with such sites is minimal at best.  I just move on
with a smile on my face.

There are lies and there are damn lies.  Then there are just inaccuracies.
 I have a hard time telling the difference to be honest.  Suffice it to say
that I avoid Wiki unless someone is quoting it on this forum and I have to
understand the source.  Now in terms of regard for Wiki, where do you get
that, from Wiki itself?  I am curious.  I have found the supporting sources
to be dubious in themselves.  It seems that if one puts a reference, it
makes it more legitimate.  Well, only in some cases.

There is a bias in Wiki, of that I do not have a doubt.  Perhaps driven by
those who run it.  One may simply ask where Wiki gets donations from, I am
sure that must be on Wiki.  I provided a website recently with a list of
donors to political campaigns.  The donations of Google certainly stood out,
and I believe that Google is used by some on the internet.  It is well known
that NPR gets an awful lot of money (if not the preponderance) from
organizations aligned with George Soros.  We have recently seen where that
leads.

I try to be critical of all sides, the right is no better than the left.  Of
course that would make me a neutral source, which is also not the case.  But
question, question, question.  I do not believe that quoting Wiki adds any
weight to an argument, like I said, I just smile and move on.

Thanks for the post.

Regards,
Mark

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

>  Hi Mark
> So in those parts where you have found inaccuracies what have you done
> about it?
> If you look to the right-hand side of most wiki entries there is an edit
> link so I would assume you've corrected the incorrect entries that you have
> found. Have you done so?
> The whole point of wikipedia is that it is updated as it is found to
> contain inaccuracies which in many ways is better than, for example, the
> Encyclopaedia Britannica which is only updated by addendums and
>  supplements. In fact here's a good one from wikipedia about Encyclopaedia
> Britannica:
>
> "The /Britannica/ has had difficulty remaining profitable.^[3] <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-EB_encyclopedia-2>
> Some articles in earlier editions have been criticised for inaccuracy, bias,
> or unqualified contributors.^[5] <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-kogan_1958-4>
> ^[9] <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-burr_1911-8>
> The accuracy in parts of the present edition has likewise been
> questioned,^[1] <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-kister_1994-0>
> ^[10] <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-Giles_Nature_study_2005-9>
> although criticisms have been challenged by /Britannica's/ management".^[11]
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-fatally_flawed-10>
>
>
> As you should be able to see there are also links which can be accessed as
> further or supporting sources.
>
> So it would seem that even one of the most highly regarded encyclopaedias's
> around is not as accurate as it could be. Does this mean it's full of lies?
> I don't think so, it just means that it is used for general, not specific,
> information dissemination and that the information contained within it is
> not necessarily completely accurate. If you want a source for a thesis you
> would, if you were sensible, go to a specialised journal not wiki. Wiki is
> probably one of the best places on the net to go for a general idea about
> something - from there you can branch out to other areas which will contain
> more information and may be more up to date. Most wiki entries include links
> and supporting sources.
>
> I think the problem is that there is a certain part of the political
> spectrum that views wikipedia with suspicion because it doesn't have the
> natural bias present that is a part of the general media - i.e. most news
> channels. And because it doesn't have this natural bias, which can also be
> said to be full of lies and deceit propagated by the general news media,
> there is an effort to brand wikipedia as itself full of lies. Sounds to me
> as if certain areas of the political spectrum are a bit nervous about having
> a source of information that isn't full of their own politically bias. As
> for the other areas - science, maths, history, philosophy etc. these can be
> quite easily amended by folks who are better informed than the original
> contributors. Such as yourself.
>
>
> Horse
>
>
>
> On 23/10/2010 20:58, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Horse,
>> I know something about science.  Those things that I am somewhat of an
>> expert in, that is I have made discoveries and contributions in, I also
>> find
>> Wiki to be often incorrect.  I am sure you find the same in your field of
>> expertise.  The trick is sorting out the lies.  Of course there is the
>> rest
>> of the internet for that, happy hunting.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>