[nSLUG] Wikipedia (Was: "Cat5e vs Cat6")

Daniel Morrison draker at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 12:26:33 AST 2009


2009/11/4 Richard Bonner <ak621 at chebucto.ns.ca>:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Daniel Morrison wrote:

>> Comparing your suspicion of inaccuracies in wikipedia to Hollywood
>> movies is... not very convincing!
>
> ***   My suspicions of inaccuracies are fact - at least for subjects in
> which I am knowledgeable.

They are so much hot air if you do not provide examples. But... please
do not bother to provide examples. We all know that there are
inaccuracies. That's why this is a futile point in the debate. The
question is more why you continue to slag Wikipedia with assertions
that it is so inaccurate that it is a bane on modern life. I maintain
that it is a boon.

>   As for the Hollywood movie inaccuracies, my point is that when the public
> is unknowledgeable in a given subject and then gets fed incorrect or
> inaccurate facts, or misconceptions, there is too much of a chance they will
> believe it and perpetuate it.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If anything, errors in
Britannica (although possible fewer in number) will be more readily
repeated as "fact" in popular culture. So what?

>>>    A more recent example was the outcry from the science community
>>> regarding the wrong science in one of those asteroid disaster movies.
>>> It's very hard to turn public perception around once one of these bad
>>> ideas gets ingrained.
>>
>> Thank goodness we have wikipedia on our side, to help with the debunking!
>
> ***   I never looked to see if that was discussed there. Are there any
> references to it? That aside, it was discussed by science journalists and
> scientists themselves at the time, but I wonder how many saw any of that?

You don't actually ever use Wikipedia, do you? Are there any
references to it? What a question! It took me 30 seconds to find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon_(1998_film)#Scientific_inaccuracies

>> You may not have the time or enthusiasm to submit a fix, but if the
>> barriers are lower, more people will do so.
>
> ***   Let's hope that turns out to be the case.

It is the case.

> For until that happens, the
> effectiveness of Why?Ki will not reach its full potential.

You continued claim that "wikipedia has great potential, so maybe
someday it will be good enough" is tiresome.

Nothing ever reaches it's full potential (even Britannica). Wikipedia
is an incredible resource RIGHT NOW.

Yes it's imperfect. So is everything else in the world. Get over it.

-D.



More information about the nSLUG mailing list