Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

sozobe wrote:

So you've posted your sources ad nauseum? Should be a simple task to go and find them one and shut up those clueless guys once and for all.

As for b) if it's just personal opinion, that should be made clear and sources have nothing to do with it (as in, it's dishonest to claim that what is just a personal opinion arises from mysterious but uncited "sources"), and as for c) a great way to deal with disruptions is to bring things back to facts.

It is absolutely personal opinion that I don't accept Wikipedia as the last word on anything. That is the one and only issue here. I admit that I don't have a source to verify my personal opinion about that other than other posts I've made stating that this is my opinion of Wikipedia. Now if you have a source to dispute what my opinion of Wikipedia is, please post it.

0 Replies

NOTHING ought to be held as the "last word" on anything.

But if you folks haven't yet discerned what criteria establish "credibility" for foxfyre then you just have not been paying attention.

0 Replies

Yes, that's true as you see it Blatham. But then you consider Salon and/or Chomsky to be a credible source and the last word on anything, so what can I say?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, that's true as you see it Blatham. But then you consider Salon and/or Chomsky to be a credible source and the last word on anything, so what can I say?

Typically, something as silly as this.

The truth is what I want, whether it affirms my political views or not.

- DTOM

What I want is what affirms my political views, the truth be hanged.

- Foxyfyre

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Yes, that's true as you see it Blatham. But then you consider Salon and/or Chomsky to be a credible source and the last word on anything, so what can I say?

Typically, something as silly as this.

The truth is what I want, whether it affirms my political views or not.

- DTOM

What I want is what affirms my political views, the truth be hanged.

- Foxyfyre

Or in the case of JTT taking something, anything out of context, or making something up to be as disagreeable as possible.

0 Replies

Even the founder of Wikipedia admonishes against using it as a source...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/

Good to know. I have to admit I've used it a couple of times. Now I know better.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

Even the founder of Wikipedia admonishes against using it as a source...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/

Good to know. I have to admit I've used it a couple of times. Now I know better.

Thanks Sierra. I hadn't seen that, but I have found so many errors in Wikipedia myself that I cringe to think kids may be using it as source material for their course work.

I do occasionallypost a Wikipedia article because it does provide some useful information, but I try to remember to also post a disclaimer warning that it is Wikipedia after all, so I don't vouch for the content. I have also posted Wikipedia as a source along with other sources that agree with the Wikipedia content.

I mainly use Wikipedia for key words, phrases, or names to do further research as it does provide a broad collection of stuff on various subjects. It is not entirely useless. It is just very dubious as any kind of authority unless it can be backed up by something more substantial.

0 Replies

Link to the original article:Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation.

I suppose, no-one who ever worked academically can object that.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

Even the founder of Wikipedia admonishes against using it as a source...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/

Good to know. I have to admit I've used it a couple of times. Now I know better.

Sheesh. You continue to impress with the excellence of your misreadinig skills. Blue ribbon stuff.

The fellow's point (go ahead, go to the effort of re-reading) had to do with student's at the university level referencing encyclopedias, not just this one.

Traditional encyclopedias are, as you'd possibly understand, written exclusively by academics and specialists, a fact which might not normally be agreeable to folks who don't much like those sorts.

0 Replies

You obviously didn't read the piece Sierra posted. It is full of advice on the unreliability of Wikipedia entries. One such point of advice is this:

Quote:

helpful librarians will be able to tailor a bespoke bibliography for the student, bringing years of resource mining experience and specialist skills to the task. If your "jumping off point" for a project is such a librarian, then intelligence will reward intelligence. If your "jumping off point" is Wikipedia, and its over-reliance on web dross, then stupidity will reward stupidity.

Quote:

Main Entry: dross
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'dräs, 'dro s
Etymology: Middle English dros, from Old English drOs dregs
1 : the scum that forms on the surface of molten metal
2 : waste or foreign matter : IMPURITY
3 : something that is base, trivial, or inferior

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You obviously didn't read the piece Sierra posted. It is full of advice on the unreliability of Wikipedia entries. One such advice is this:

Quote:
helpful librarians will be able to tailor a bespoke bibliography for the student, bringing years of resource mining experience and specialist skills to the task. If your "jumping off point" for a project is such a librarian, then intelligence will reward intelligence. If your "jumping off point" is Wikipedia, and its over-reliance on web dross, then stupidity will reward stupidity.

No kidding. It's the nature of the beast, which as you said earlier, does not make in non-valuable.

But that wasn't SS's implication.

Quote:

Even the founder of Wikipedia admonishes against using it as a source... Good to know. I have to admit I've used it a couple of times. Now I know better

So how about you bring some integrity to these discussions, fox. The "admonishment" is of the nature I described, not of the nature SS implied.

0 Replies

I thought I already did. Just today. On this thread. But then you have so rarely quoted or represented me accurately since I've been on A2K, I don't really expect you to have the integrity to do that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I thought I already did. Just today. On this thread. But then you have so rarely quoted or represented me accurately since I've been on A2K, I don't really expect you to have the integrity to do that.

Good grief. What words, what sentence in your post comes close to claiming what you just claimed?

0 Replies

Okay let's back up. When Sierra said she would no longer quote from Wikipedia, I believe I very clearly said that I still would and specified the conditions under which I would do so.

Now what do you find so alarming/offensive/unacceptable about that? Or if that isn't what you meant, could you be less obnoxiously pedantic and more specific about what you did mean?

I think I clearly illustrated why I think Sierra was not at all off base in her remarks, but that I thought it not necessary to not use Wikipedia at all under any circumstances.

0 Replies

Bernard, were you misquoting as usual, or do you have a reading comprehension problem. I never linked Plame and Iraq.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay let's back up. When Sierra said she would no longer quote from Wikipedia, I believe I very clearly said that I still would and specified the conditions under which I would do so.
Yes, I saw that and I referenced it above.

Now what do you find so alarming/offensive/unacceptable about that?
Nothing.
Or if that isn't what you meant, could you be less obnoxiously pedantic and more specific about what you did mean?
SS said this...

[quote]Even the founder of Wikipedia admonishes against using it as a source...
Good to know. I have to admit I've used it a couple of times. Now I know better.

He DOESN'T admonish using it as a source (as in Wikipedia bad, Brittanica good). He admonishes UNIVERSITY STUDENTS USING ENCYCLOPEDIAS AS SOURCE. Fine at junior high, but at the university level, rather more is expected, and ought to be.

OK. It dawns on me that you two both may have misunderstood what he was saying. That doesn't let either of you off the hook entirely as the meaning is inescapable - if you read carefully. So I apologize for the 'integrity' criticism and reduce it to uncareful reading. [/color]

I think I clearly illustrated why I think Sierra was not at all off base in her remarks, but that I thought it not necessary to not use Wikipedia at all under any circumstances.[/quote]

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Okay let's back up. When Sierra said she would no longer quote from Wikipedia, I believe I very clearly said that I still would and specified the conditions under which I would do so.
Yes, I saw that and I referenced it above.

Now what do you find so alarming/offensive/unacceptable about that?
Nothing.
Or if that isn't what you meant, could you be less obnoxiously pedantic and more specific about what you did mean?
SS said this...

[quote]Even the founder of Wikipedia admonishes against using it as a source...
Good to know. I have to admit I've used it a couple of times. Now I know better.

He DOESN'T admonish using it as a source (as in Wikipedia bad, Brittanica good). He admonishes UNIVERSITY STUDENTS USING ENCYCLOPEDIAS AS SOURCE. Fine at junior high, but at the university level, rather more is expected, and ought to be.

OK. It dawns on me that you two both may have misunderstood what he was saying. That doesn't let either of you off the hook entirely as the meaning is inescapable - if you read carefully. So I apologize for the 'integrity' criticism and reduce it to uncareful reading. [/color]

I think I clearly illustrated why I think Sierra was not at all off base in her remarks, but that I thought it not necessary to not use Wikipedia at all under any circumstances.

[/quote]

No, I think you were the one who was uncareful in reading. I interpreted the writer's intent to mean that university students should not be quoting from ANY encyclopedia. The encyclopedia as a source was certainly verbotten when I was in college years ago. I can't recall that the subject ever came up in classes taken more recently, but those have been more hands on practical kinds of things not requiring a lot of research or critical thinking and the rest settled for students' opinons as sufficient (which I thought was a real waste of time.) But I digress.

I took the writer of the piece to be saying that Wikipedia was unsuitable as reliable source material for anybody but the lazy and careless at any level.

0 Replies

Good grief.

Quote:

No, I think you were the one who was uncareful in reading. I interpreted the writer's intent to mean that university students should not be quoting from ANY encyclopedia. The encyclopedia as a source was certainly verbotten when I was in college years ago. I can't recall that the subject ever came up in classes taken more recently, but those have been more hands on practical kinds of things not requiring a lot of research or critical thinking and the rest settled for students' opinons as sufficient (which I thought was a real waste of time.) But I digress.

There is the author of the Telegraph piece. There is the quoted passage spoken or written by the founder of Wikipedia. SS refers to the second, the founder of Wikipedia. He says precisely what you've said in your "digression". He doesn't say nor imply what the writer of the Telegraph piece does.

Quote:

I took the writer of the piece to be saying that Wikipedia was unsuitable as reliable source material for anybody but the lazy and careless at any level.

Yeah. But that's NOT who SS made her claim about in the first sentence.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Good grief.

Quote:
No, I think you were the one who was uncareful in reading. I interpreted the writer's intent to mean that university students should not be quoting from ANY encyclopedia. The encyclopedia as a source was certainly verbotten when I was in college years ago. I can't recall that the subject ever came up in classes taken more recently, but those have been more hands on practical kinds of things not requiring a lot of research or critical thinking and the rest settled for students' opinons as sufficient (which I thought was a real waste of time.) But I digress.

There is the author of the Telegraph piece. There is the quoted passage spoken or written by the founder of Wikipedia. SS refers to the second, the founder of Wikipedia. He says precisely what you've said in your "digression". He doesn't say nor imply what the writer of the Telegraph piece does.

Quote:
I took the writer of the piece to be saying that Wikipedia was unsuitable as reliable source material for anybody but the lazy and careless at any level.

Yeah. But that's NOT who SS made her claim about in the first sentence.

What Telegraph piece? SS posted a link to a piece in the Register and I can't see that she misrepresented anything in it. Were the two of you discussing a Telegraph piece elsewhere?

0 Replies

According to the source the Register quotes, namely the The Chronicle (link above),

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know