Who here is as in love with Wikipedia as me? It's amazing, that's how I found this site!
I use it constantly. I wouldn't say I'm in love with it, but it's a wonderful resource.
I'm jerkin' it to wikipedia right now
{{subst:afd1}}
{{disputed}}{{NPOV}}{{tone}}{{attention}}{{cleanup}}{{wikify}}{{verify}}
Wikipedia is horrible.
It isn't paper, so there can be many articles and in more depth than normal right?
But they delete a lot of content because of flawed notability guidelines. Well known figure in say.. art from centuries ago? Deleted, someone {{prod}}s it and no one notices or it goes through AFD and people vote on it with (at best) googling for it. I'm pretty certain a lot of the people voting on AFDs don't even read the article before voting, much less do any research.
All the while there is an article on EVERY GOD DAMN POKEMON AND TRANSFORMER AND NEARLY EVERY EPISODE OF THE SIMPSONS AND HALF OF THE BIBLE SPLIT UP BY VERSE. The fuck? Harddrives are cheap, even Jimbo "Bomis wasn't a pornsite" Wales thinks that the guidelines for inclusion should be low. He doesn't mind the Simpsons articles. You also have the horrible editors that will spout guidelines and policies up the ass all over talk pages instead of actually trying to contribute. These people are also highly likely to revert an expert on a subject citing some guideline (not policy). Not even going to mention wheel warring and edit warring. There is another set of people that just go out of their way to be stubborn it seems. You want to put an image below the fold? OR HEAVENS NO LINKIMAGE IT and people have a fucking shitstorm and there can never be a concensus because they will vehemently fight for WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS and even citing the god damn disclaimer of liability as policy (see Mohammed cartoon). If people would shut the fuck up about userboxes maybe people could get back to work. Although, that might actually make the quality of the encyclopedia go down as the edits by those that are knowledgable about a subject and/or can copyedit are widdled away to mediocrity by Joe Average.
{{stub}}
Not that >>4 is bitter or anything.
Wow.
I used to be totally addicted to Wikipedia, both reading and contributing. Probably the contributions I'm most proud of are starting the articles on traditional animation and Tank Man (the Tiananmen Square protester with balls the size of station wagons). Nowadays, I don't spend as much time there, but I still hit it up for quick info on stuff at least once a week and I'll sometimes edit typos and formatting and such.
Winston Churchill said "...democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Thanks, WikiQuote!) I think Wikipedia's operation model is the same; it has its problems, but really, can you come up with a better model that wouldn't hinder the fundamental concept of allowing anyone and everyone to be a contributor? Most of the time, it works just fine. Really, the "problems" are just such a minor piece of the site as a whole. I really think that, if you had to pick one site on the web to point out as an example of the potential for collaboration and information seeking capabilities of the internet, Wikipedia would be a natural choice.
I do agree, though, that there's a good deal of article bloat with respect to things like pages for every single episode of Star Trek and such.
>>6
Is wikipedia a good source for general information on a topic? Sure. Is it likely to have information that I could not find myself on google? Not really. That being said it is still useful as a general overview of a topic and maybe a few references.
I think Wikipedia the thing has lots of problems, but Wikipedia the idea is great. It does a good job of looking good on the outside, but the inside is a total mess (in some places). My view is probably scewed though as I have mostly been going through NPOV disputes instead of creating articles. It is undeniable that the issues in >>4 exist, but I would not say that they are pervasive (well, besides the morons on AFD and driving off experts).
There are also more problems with the board and Jimbo. One example is fundraising claiming to be a compendium of all human knowledge and then in practice trying to be a normal encyclopedia. Another is Jimbo cannot decide if he wants to be a dictator or not. He stays out of some issues saying the community should decide, but at other times he strikes like the fist of an angry god. Its his project, fine--do whatever you want, but at times I think it would be better off without him.
Is there a better way to do things? Probably. Do I know what it is? No. I'm sure someone is going to say allowing anonymity would be good (and I agree). Does anyone have knowledge of ja.wikipedia? I've heard that it is mostly done by anons. Do they appened their IPs all over the place or is it true anon? Is there as much infighting as en.? I'm not convinced that allowing anyone to edit is even a good idea. There are pleny of good editors, but there are plenty of bad ones too. Some of the bad ones drive off good editors. Is there a way to let all of the good ones in while still keeping out the bad ones? I have no clue.
Ultimately, I think most of these issues boil down to wikipedia not knowing what it is or what it is trying to be. Is it a community run site or a dictatorship? Is it a reposistory for all knowledge or is it trying to be a (traditional) encyclopedia? Maybe someday it will mature and figure out what it wants to be or maybe someone else will make a better one.
>if you had to pick one site on the web to point out as an example of the potential for collaboration and information seeking capabilities of the internet
I agree, wikipedia is a decent choice (right now). Information seeking? The internet would be much better off having Lexis/Nexis, InfoTrac, scholarly journals, books... basically your local library, online. Collaboration? It does show that people can work together to create good things on the internet. Is it the best example? Probably not. There are plenty of open source projects that are great examples of collaboration but that is probably beyond the average person. I would put everything2 over wikipedia any day of the week though.
Wikipedia is a pretty shitty work environment but if you hate the project as a whole you just hate the internet + GFDL
I actually do hate the GFDL and GPL. It is quite obvious with GPL 3 that it is not truly interested in being free speech.
>>11 Actually, I wasn't trolling.
I'll just quote RMS about gpl3. If you really care google and you will see much debate.
<blockquote>The Foundation believes that free software---that is, software that can be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, redistributed and shared by its users---is the only ethically satisfactory form of software development, as free and open scientific research is the only ethically satisfactory context for the conduct of mathematics, physics, or biology. The Foundation, and those who support its broader work, regard free software as an essential step in a social movement for freer access to knowledge, freer access to facilities of communication, and a more deeply participatory culture, open to human beings with less regard to existing distributions of wealth and social power. </blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote>...Changes to the GPL, for whatever reason they are undertaken, must not undermine the underlying movement for freer exchange of knowledge. To the extent that the movement has identified technological or legal measures likely to be harmful to freedom, such as ``trusted computing'' or a broadening of the scope of patent law, the GPL needs to address those issues from a perspective of political principle and the needs of the movement, not from primary regard for the industrial or commercial consequences.</blockquote>
<br>
From the gpl3 itself:
<blockquote>
3. Digital Restrictions Management.As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data. </blockquote>
I'll stick to licensing things I write as either BSD or MIT. Advocating freedom and lack of restrictions by including restrictions is idiotic. The GFDL has a similar clause. I was never really fond of the GPL anyways because of it being viral and the silly clause such as requiring that changes be documented and such.
I win for not clicking HTML formatting.
The Foundation believes that free software---that is, software that can be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, redistributed and shared by its users---is the only ethically satisfactory form of software development, as free and open scientific research is the only ethically satisfactory context for the conduct of mathematics, physics, or biology. The Foundation, and those who support its broader work, regard free software as an essential step in a social movement for freer access to knowledge, freer access to facilities of communication, and a more deeply participatory culture, open to human beings with less regard to existing distributions of wealth and social power.
...Changes to the GPL, for whatever reason they are undertaken, must not undermine the underlying movement for freer exchange of knowledge. To the extent that the movement has identified technological or legal measures likely to be harmful to freedom, such as ``trusted computing'' or a broadening of the scope of patent law, the GPL needs to address those issues from a perspective of political principle and the needs of the movement, not from primary regard for the industrial or commercial consequences.
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
>Is there a better way to do things?
everything2
Funny!
Wiki is going to take over the world
wikipedia sucks. people there are way too serious.
maybe...but I think its a good source of info at least. on most topics anyway
>>18 confine yourself to /b/ until you grow up sufficently.
Wikipedia = Win
>>19
It isn't really reliable. Even topics that you think would be well covered because they are tech related are wrong, unsourced, too technical, or missing substainial information
like what? also, can't you edit the topics, or at least i know you can make new ones? so, you could make it more informative if you wanted, right?
>>23
Anyone can edit articles, but you have to be a user to create articles now. Someone will make an article for you if you ask on Wikipedia:Articles for creation though. If you aren't logged in everyone can see your IP address though. There really isn't a reason not to make a/5/10/20 users as you are more anonymous that way unless you are on say AOL and use their proxy. The problem is that AOL's IP ranges are blocked by retard admins constantly. They will even block the non-proxy IP addresses when the person is using the proxies. Pretty sure Tor is blocked near permanently too.
Even if you do fix up an article it is only a matter of time until someone 'corrects' and article based on googling instead of actual research or knowledge.
I see, well, that makes sense
Whether someone will 'correct' your article depends on how touchy or political the subject is. Hotly debated items or current events will often see edit wars, but more mundane articles are generally left alone.
You could make an anon account and post it here for all of us to use.
I found a good example of a sci/math article that you would expect to be good (because of wikipedia's systemic bias) that absolutely sucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activation_Energy
This article was created on 2002-2-25, so it has been around for four years. It has been editted 70 times.
It sucks.
*There are several things that are incorrect.
*The writting is horrible.
*Nothing is sourced.
*Several important things are omitted.
How many of these things can you spot?
Most those edits are vandalism reverts, word linking, and adding alternate languages, and other non-content edits. The article creator's original text is still largely untouched. I can only surmise that anyone who really knows the subject and is willing to fix it hasn't found it until today.
>*There are several things that are incorrect.
>*The writting is horrible.
>*Nothing is sourced.
>*Several important things are omitted.
You seem to know a lot about it. So fix the article and add some specific bibliographic sources for your corrections to lessen risk of reverts.
Yes, there are a lot of horribly written, incorrect, and biased articles but it's never going to improve if no one fixes them.
>>28
I added it to my watchlist as I do with all of the other articles that I find that I think I can improve from the cleanup categories (this article has been tagged since Dec 2005). Anyone that has taken highschool or a survey chemistry course in college could fix this article. No one has. This is the perfect example of wikipedia failing! I actually am planning to fix it up, but I just want to let others see how bad it is for themselves.
I've never seen all that much of a problem with Wikipedia. If an article sucks, it's usually because it's either an ultra-esoteric subject and someone wrote the article in fifteen minutes and never expanded on it, or the subject is decidedly non-encyclopedic such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan, where stupid-ass editors are the main problem.
I do think one of the major problems is the lack of sources; given the nature of the internet, however, this shouldn't be surprising.
>>29
I agree Wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't see it failing as a whole. At the very least, it's a useful starting point for further research when google fails. There have been a couple of subjects where I had a much easier time finding reliable sources through wikipedia than google, even though the article was incomplete.
>>31
That is because google is not a good research tool.
Your local library is.
>>32
Please. Unless you happen to live next to a university, local public libraries totally suck. It's not really their fault either: why would they spends hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their already tight budgets maintaining subscriptions to obscure journals that only like 2 of their patrons will ever use? Public libraries should be about breadth, not depth.
Not that I'm saying google is great for everything either. It really depends on the publishing behavior of the particular field. For example, computer science and engineering professors usually do a good job of posting their research papers on their websites, but humanities profs aren't as keen about it.
>>For example, computer science and engineering professors usually do a good job of posting their research papers on their websites, but humanities profs aren't as keen about it.
That's an interesting parallel to the software/hardware industry with its open standards(yeah, there are exceptions) and the entertainment industry with its DMCA(again, there are exceptions).
And there's another interesting parallel: just like open-source kids, whenever somebody whines that a wikipedia article is shitty, wikipedia fanboys will kindly ask him to fix it himself.
That is just about the dumbest parallel I've heard for MONTHS. Are you some sort of Slashdotter or what?
>>35
{{sofixit}}
I apologize. I blame it on 2 am and lack of sleep. Thank goodness for anonymity.
Someone else is going to have to fix wikipedia; It isn't going to be me after I get called a pedophile troll.
how to fix wikipedia:
I think that people hating on wikipedia says more about the haters than it does about wikipedia.
It does say that they hate wikipedia. I don't really know if it says much beyond that. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Maybe they resent it being used as a factual reference when there's no central administration checking the veracity of an article, as there is with a regular encyclopedia. If true, I'm not sure what that would say about someone who hates wikipedia.
>>43
or maybe it's the fact that whenever an expert on a subject tries to correct an inaccurate article, people call them a troll and revert their changes...
Agreed. But those bastards deleted the caturday article!
>>44
citation needed
I just want to get rid of the horsecock from the cum page, I mean I was only going there to see what would make it taste better and ...BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM
BONERKIIIIILLLLLLLL
>>47
Why do you have a boner when reading wikipedia?
Cum on WIki just redirects to "Come"
weeaboo redirects to Japanophile I'm disappointed
Yeah, it's not enough of a word to even have a redirect. It ought to be deleted.
Wikipedia is awesome because you can just surf it forever. Everything connects and when you are like me and just love reading and learning new things (regardless of what it is) then every page is awesome.
Wikipedia is awesome because you can just surf it forever. Everything connects and when you are like me and just love reading and learning new things (regardless of what it is) then every page is awesome.
Wikipedia is awesome because you can just surf it forever. Everything connects and when you are like me and just love reading and learning new things (regardless of whether it's correct or not) then every page is awesome
Wikipedia is awesome because you can just surf it forever. Everything connects and when you are like me and just love reading and learning new things (regardless of whether it's been posted again and again) then every page is awesome.
4-ch is awesome because you can just surf it forever. Everything connects and when you are like me and just love reading and learning new copypasta (regardless of whether it's funny or not) then every thread is awesome
Google is awesome because you can just surf it forever. Everything connects and when you are like me and just love reading and learning new copypasta (regardless of whether it's funny or not) then every thread is awesome
Everything2 is awesome because you can just surf it forever. Everything connects and when you are like me and just love reading and learning new things (regardless of whether it's correct or not) then every page is awesome.
Wikipedia isn't teaching you much, unless you want to read about Sci-fi series #04512 and episode #98674542. For most pages the content is prone to errors if not vandalism.
--this post is a stub. Please help 4-chan to improve it. --
It is argued that wikipedia does not teaching you much. The exception being if you want to read about Sci-fi series #04512 and episode #98674542. For most pages the content is prone to errors if not vandalism {{citation needed}}.
--this post is a stub. Please help 4-chan to improve it. --
It is argued that wikipedia does not teaching you much. The exception being if you want to read about Sci-fi series #04512(link) and episode #98674542. For most pages the content is prone to errors if not vandalism {{citation needed}}.
--this post is a stub. Please help 4-chan to improve it. --
It is argued that Wikipedia(link) does not teach you much. {{NPOV}} The exception is if you want to read about Sci-fi series #04512(link) and episode #98674542(red link) from that series. For most pages the content is prone to errors(link) and probably vandalism(link) {{citation needed}}.
--This post is a stub. Please help 4-ch improve it. --
take it to http://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1149406166/
Redirect
↳ http://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1149406166/91
I edited my friend's user page on wikipedia to say that he is a proud member of the furry fandom. My edit was reverted by a mod and I got a warning.
I have been cold towards wikipedia ever since.
Well, was he furry?
d00d, you don't edit others' user pages. That's Wikipedia etiquette one-oh-one.
But the point remains -- Wikipedia is a shitty source of information besides the Geek type info. Sure I can look up Gorgans and Vulcans without worrying much about vandals and just plain wrong information, but when it comes to more serious topics -- politicians and historical figures, for example -- the page is going to be skewed to the view of the most prolific editors. If more Wiki-editors like Barack Obama, his page is going to highlight the good side rather than the bad. References to real (but bad looking) events will be deleted and reposted. This has come up quite often, and in the case of the last presidential election, there were several cases of politicians (or their staff) editing there Wpedia entry to sound more favorable, leading to lockouts on those pages.
And in science pages, it is much the same. The people editing Wiki, by and large are not Ph.D Physicists, Biologists, or Chemists. At best you have interested amateurs. They might be enthusiastic, but enthusiasm is not equal to knowledge.
I think Wpedia itself can be a starting point, but it's not sold that way. People think that Wpedia is a one stop shop for truth, and never really check up on Wpedia to make sure that what they're reading is the Truth, rather than the Truthyness.
> the page is going to be skewed to the view of the most prolific editors
Unlike most print encyclopedias, where the article is skewed towards the bias of a single editor. The idea is that bias is inevitable, and the best we can do right now is allow various peoples' biases to cancel one another out.
I don't view Wikipedia as a bastion of truth, but it is the most convenient place to get usually not blatantly false information on arcane subjects. If you can show me a place where the layman can acquire superior info on, say, 1-methyl 4-phenyl 1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (that opioid-related chemical which causes death of cells in the substantia nigra) or the Republic of Ezo (short-lived breakaway state formed by Japanese naval officers in Hokkaido during the Meiji Revolution) please do so.
If I'm working on something where objectivity is critical, like an essay, I'll make an effort to avoid using Wikipedia. But it's great for satisfying curiosity, and oftentimes it's the only place to find information on obscure topics without long and painful searching.
> Unlike most print encyclopedias, where the article is skewed towards the bias of a single editor.
You don't keep your job as a professional encyclopedia editor long if you're openly biased. There are professional standards to live up to. Wikipedia may have written standards, but there's no real consequences for breaking them.
> You don't keep your job as a professional encyclopedia editor long if you're openly biased.
that seems stupid to me. everyone is biased, and i would think being honest about your biases would be better than trying to hide them.
>>71
Because people on Wikipedia are honest about their biases?
This is a red herring.
Being an academic means you have to be able to lay your personal biases aside.
Any time someone says they're not biased, you know they've already lied to you once and will probably do so again.
> Because people on Wikipedia are honest about their biases?
Of course not. They try to claim that they're not biased at all, just like most editors of print encyclopedias do.
> Being an academic means you have to be able to lay your personal biases aside.
Then what? Adopt someone elses personal biases?
Yeah, that's a great idea. I'll write something I don't think is true and then tell everyone it's true and completely unbiased.
>>73, please attend a four-year university and tell me there's no college professors with blatant biases.
>>74
As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't claim anywhere that its editors are not biased. (Maybe some individual editors do, but I doubt they're the majority.) Their NPOV policy states, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing significant views fairly and without bias." This sounds a bit like a declaration, but I think it's just phrased in order to make a stronger impression then "All Wikipedia articles should..."
As you said, this is no different from what editors of print encyclopedias aspire to. The difference is that, by opening its articles to further editing, Wikipedia takes the gamble that unrestricted peer review will remove more bias then it introduces. I don't know whether they're right, but personally, I think a flexible bias is much better then one set in stone or paper. Just viewing a page history on Wikipedia (if the page is sufficiently popular) allows one to gauge the extent and focus of the biases, much like consulting several different print encyclopedias, but significantly easier.
>>76
Even when people willing try to, it's impossible to completely put all your biases aside. Most people probably have biases they never even noticed.
So? If you can only do something 90% effectively, does this mean you shouldn't do it at all?
>>79
I did not say that. My point was more that even if people try not to let their biases get in the way, it makes sense to admit what they think they are as well, because they might creep into their writing without them knowing/trying.
> Unless >>71 is thinking that every text written should have a disclaimer that lists the author's professed biases, which I find hard to believe.
that's exactly what i'm thinking.
>>86
And what if people are biased about their biases?
I think a fundamental problem is that people are generally distrustful of the communist aspects of open-source editing. Capitalism might have taught us that something has more authority when it's privatized. People distrust motivations that don't involve money.
Nevertheless, thinking Wikipedia is useless due to biased opinions, etcetra, is to deny the human condition. You can't write an encyclopaedia with an arbitrary robot, even though people strive to achieve this end - even encyclopaedias require some amount of romantic fiction in order to turn any entry about an organism into something more than "Yet more biomass".
Intelligentsia-elitism doesn't like the fact that "anyone should be allowed to participate in this discussion". Because "peer review" literally means review by people considered your equals, and nobody wants to admit that anyone from the lowest common denominator that knows how to edit a wiki entry could possibly be considered his "equal".
You know how the American Constitution says "All men are created equal?". Britain had a good laugh at that one too.
>>88
sing it, brother!
I see great value in Wikipedia just like I find great value in using the internet for information. The difficuly I have is I live 20 minutes away from the nearest library and it's part of a college so I can't check out books there. There's a public library a bit further on but it's about 1/20th the size of the college library. To get to a decent library I would need to travel about an hour and a half by car or about 2 and a half hours by bus to Salt Lake City. What the internet does is it allows for the free access of information to everybody regardless of location. I imagine my cousins that live in Alaska appreciate their internet connection even more.
That is completely and utterly silly.
>>86
Don't they already have that? Just look at their profiles: "I am a female," lol.
At least the science articles on Wiki are roughly on par with those in Britannica. That's saying something. Even ones on "political" (in the States, that is) issues like evolution and climate change are current, well-written and factual.
So intelligence and knowledge are immaterial when writing a factual article, is that what you're saying?
Well, if you really want to create a strawman argument, the answer is "maybe". Here's the problem:
Intelligence and Knowledge aren't empirical.
Get it? Let's say we have two partisan opinions. The camp that thinks god exists, and the one that thinks it doesn't. To one camp, the other camp might appear "Factually inaccurate and stupid". Who ultimately is correct?
The usual way of determining intelligence and knowledge is by popular consensus. If everyone else reading the article is an idiot and thinks that a post by an idiot is a work of genius, it doesn't matter if you disagree. This is the flaw of peer review.
If you want a few examples to prove this point, you could do some research into why it took so long for people to accept continental drift, the decimal system, the theory of evolution, the person that ORIGINALLY came up with the idea of the periodic table before Mendelev, etcetera.
So is "Intelligence" a necessity for writing a factual article? Not necessarily, but it helps. It doesn't help to innately distrust Wikipedia due to the fact that anyone can post, unless you're incapable of using your own personal judgment.
Generally i think the idea is that ultimately this doesnt matter because someone of greater understanding of a topic can always refine the definitions of someone who may be be 'less inteligent' or simple does not have a deep enough knowledge of the subject. So eventually through this process, we should arrive at the most refined description of what is being discussed.
Notice how I said "factual article". A discussion whether god exists or not is not a "factual article", as the question by tradition is not based on facts.
> The usual way of determining intelligence and knowledge is by popular consensus.
What does this even mean? Are you claiming the scientific method is nothing but popular opinion?
> If everyone else reading the article is an idiot and thinks that a post by an idiot is a work of genius, it doesn't matter if you disagree. This is the flaw of peer review.
This is why, in general, idiots are not selected for peer review.
> continental drift
Lack of evidence, and lack of a plausible mechanism prevented the theory from wide-spread acceptance. Once a proper amount of supporting evidence was found, the theory was accepted. This is the scientific method working properly.
> the decimal system
Is not a fact, only a convention, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
> the theory of evolution
Did not spring fully formed from Darwin's mind. Darwin's original theory had its faults and was incomplete. It took a long time to develop the theory to the point where it was sound and complete, and it's still being worked on. Scientific method working as intended, again.
The usual criticism raised by experts against Wikipedia is that even if they write a more refined version of an article, somebody will come along and edit it back into a less refined version due to a lack of understanding on the topic. Most experts do not have the time or energy to hang out on Wikipedia all the time to fix an article everytime someone ruins it, especially since this is usually done by Wikipedia regulars who spend a lot of time defending their edits.
>>97
Here we go again! Let's have a debate and discredit everything the opposition says in an attempt to get the last word and feel vindicated!
>Notice how I said "factual article". A discussion whether god exists or not is not a "factual article", as the question by tradition is not based on facts.
Lots of people who live in the bible belt would beg to differ. This is why they cite theories such as the watchmaker theory and the completionist probability theory. Your opinion in this case is irrelevant.
A fact is a statement of truth. This does not mean that the fact is truth. "God exists" is a fact, that some people have come to through the process of experience/observation. This does not mean it has to be universally true.
>What does this even mean? Are you claiming the scientific method is nothing but popular opinion?
The scientific method has little to do with the scientific process of peer review.
And that, yes, is nothing but popular opinion.
You've never studied science at university level, have you?
>This is why, in general, idiots are not selected for peer review.
Who defines idiocy? Aren't you assuming that idiocy is empirical? Wait a minute, isn't it also defined by society? Whoa.
>Lack of evidence, and lack of a plausible mechanism prevented the theory from wide-spread acceptance. Once a proper amount of supporting evidence was found, the theory was accepted. This is the scientific method working properly.
Up until the 1980's, certain textbooks were still citing continental drift with a label stating that it was "just a theory" and some very important scientific people did indeed believe it was all false. You make it sound as if everyone experienced a spontaneous epiphany -Hallelujah- and became immediately receptive of the theory. This MOST definitely did not happen.
Getting a theory accepted by the scientific community doesn't just require the persuasiveness of the theory, it also requires a beauty pageant of sorts. This is the process of peer review.
>Is not a fact, only a convention, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
The point is that people made arguments about how the old system of currency under British rule was "Easier to understand". This is a classic example of society dictating truth. It was a mistake to lump these with the others without explaining the point here. I apologize.
>Did not spring fully formed from Darwin's mind. Darwin's original theory had its faults and was incomplete. It took a long time to develop the theory to the point where it was sound and complete, and it's still being worked on. Scientific method working as intended, again.
And this explains the labels on textbooks stating that "Evolution is only a theory and shouldn't be taken seriously" in the Bible belt? How true does that theory hold in that area of society? Truth has never been an absolute quality.
The point here is that Wikipedia's system is no more flawed than scientific journals, except it uses a wider peer base, rather than being exclusivist. The verity of Wikipedia could be debated on for hours, but the real value of the facts it presents is ENTIRELY DECIDED by yourself and the audience you present those facts to. It's similiar to currency exchange rates.
Most of your arguments there seem to be based on the American fundamentalist religious right, who oppose various scientific theories for political gain (and also do their best to redefine religion towards their own best interests). This is certainly a topic worthy of discussion, but really, it has as much to do with the scientific theory and the value of truth as faith healers have to do with biochemistry. Also,
> Who defines idiocy? Aren't you assuming that idiocy is empirical? Wait a minute, isn't it also defined by society? Whoa.
You're the one who said the people peer reviewing might be idiots, so I assumed you had a working definition for the term, seeing as how you were using it.