Wikipedia - received truth?

[Grumpage]

Since Wikipedia is a cornerstone of information in these forums I thought this article might be worth a look. Actually it’s a bit dry and only nearly interesting.

http://www.technologyreview.com/printer ... b&section=

The author seems to approve of W whose first principle is verifiability of its content (i.e. references) so that you end up with ‘received truth’ and a ‘consensus view’. This could lead to junk-in/junk-out but that seems to be at a minimum. Come to think of it, much of what we regard as knowledge is nothing more than a consensus view, not of actual reality, but of what other people have said (i.e. references). I’ve lost count of the number of academic articles and books which are simply that. So, W is true! God bless W.

In my view, ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ are phantoms anyway. All we have is ‘information’. We really know nothing.

[Ishtar]

Agree with every word of that, Grumps.

I also think Wiki is 'a good thing' overall in that at least we can easily find out the received wisdom on something, and keep up to date with changes in thinking. Before the internet and Wiki, we had to wait years for an encyclopaedia reprint to get those changes.

But there is a further flaw ... the pages on the Christian religion are written by Christians who are basing all their assumptions of history and chronology on a literal intepretation of the Biblical texts.

This is infuriating for someone like myself who reads scriptures as mythology. And this literalist thinking has somehow seeped through to the actual mythology pages. For instance, they talk about Gilgamesh being a real person, a Sumerian king, even though his mother was the Cow of Heaven. You'd think that would give them pause for thought ... Cow of Heaven... but it doesn't. All mythological heroes are born of 'virgins', in other words, Immaculate Conception in that a god or goddess couples with the human to produce the offspring.

Min has a good joke about this, from his old history professor, I think, who used to say of Mary's conception of Jesus "It wasn't just the hand of God that touched her."

Oh dear, how did we get from Wiki to sex? Must be the RA rearing its head again.

[Minimalist]

Oh dear, how did we get from Wiki to sex?

And why are YOU always involved?


Wiki has its limitations but as long as one is aware of those limitations and acts accordingly it should not be a problem. I agree with Grump that it provides information and as long as the sources are identified so that they may be evaluated it is then up to the reader to make use of that information.

[Ishtar]

Oh dear, how did we get from Wiki to sex?

And why are YOU always involved?

Er ... sorry? I think you're projecting, Min.

YOU are the one that emails me jokes every single day, whether I want them or not - and every single day, what are all these jokes about? SEX.

[Minimalist]

You don't even see the worst of them.

Hard as it may be to believe, even I have standards.

[Ishtar]

You don't even see the worst of them.

Hard as it may be to believe, even I have standards.

Blimey! I'd hate to see the ones you hold back then.

[uniface]

All mythological heroes are born of 'virgins', in other words, Immaculate Conception in that a god or goddess couples with the human to produce the offspring.

Doesn't couple !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And how freaking hard is it, in this day and age, to recognise in vitro fertilization when it's in front of our faces ??????????????????

[Minimalist]

LOL.

Hey now Zeus didn't use the Heavenly Turkey Baster. He was into seduction.

Zeus was cool.

[JSteen]

I'm very pro-wikipedia as long as users keep in mind what it is.

- In principle is takes the power of information out of the hands of the elite (academics, politicians, corporations etc) and into the hands of the people. Arch is a great example - before the internet in general and wikipedia specifically, it was much harder for a random person (me) to run across the contested issues of archaeology. "Das Klub" controlled the information. Is it my imagination that alternative theories are being investigated faster now?

- The nature of the internet and wikipedia I think, I hope, foster critical thinking. You can't just trust what you read. You HAVE to think about the source and it's apparent and hidden biases and agendas. This is different from before when we were taught to just trust authority - the published word (and anyone with a credential).

Wikipedia (and more broadly the internet) has given the people a lot of power - and a lot of responsibility - for critical thought.

[Minimalist]

The web, in general, has loosened the control of the academics to decide what gets published and what does not in every field.

This has a downside as crackpots can make web sites, too. More ideas are better than fewer ideas but caveat emptor becomes even more important.

[uniface]

Das Klub still controls it, J. Historical facts, however well attested, that place favored groups in an unflattering light disappear within minutes. Or are editorially blocked.

[uniface]

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/w ... formation/

[Minimalist]

Amusingly, Wiki has an entry for The National Post.

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

[Digit]

I fully expect that the 'investigations' into our 'warmist's' fraud to be fudged with statements that they acted in 'true scientific manner' etc (write your own script here) but enormous damage has been done both to the CRU's standing and to British science in general.
It's very noticable over here that since the story broke more and more scientists are breaking ranks, I guess the ship is sinking!

Roy.