Here’s an interesting leak, if true. Someone (“Yellow Rose”, or YR) is a mole within a religious group trying to subvert the Wikipedia:
YR gathered intell on a baker’s dozen fundamentalist techno-geeks, resembling a cult within a cult, who have become Wikipedians. Lacking a Y chromosome and being thus subordinated to menial church chores, she could not herself get closer than the loneliest of the 13 guys, but the Pentecostal sexual prohibitions at least afforded her the ability to avoid sacrifices espionage agents often have to make. YR emphasizes that their names mean nothing, and their ages mean less, and that the country they come from is called Texas. They were brought up there and taught there the church to abide, and that the worldview they live, by has God on its side. Empowered by God, and led by a charismatic, MIT, computer science sophomore (who also plays lead guitar in a Christian rock band), this squad-size cohort of Christian soldiers is chipping away at Wikiscience, in subject areas entirely predictable. Clever they are too, in taking advantage of Wikiethics, specifically NPOV (i.e., Neutral Point of View), where all views must be represented, even if demonstrably incorrect; any fundamentalist worth his salt can drive a truck threw such a loop hole, and they have begun doing so. Intelligent design and biblical floods are being commingled with Darwin and DNA. The process is so far more apparent on the discussion pages than on actual pages, where God’s soldiers employ a Pentecostal version of good cop, bad cop. The bad cop is an apparent Christian trying to interject religion where science contradicts his worldview, and the good cop(s) is disguised as an atheist lending support by invoking the NPOV rule.
This wouldn’t be at all surprising. Creationists really aren’t necessarily stupid—just wrong, deluded, and dedicated to advocating a stupid point of view.
I would be remiss if I didn’t snark about you not being true to a NPOV in your last sentence, even if you are correct.
“the good cop(s) is disguised as an atheist lending support by invoking the NPOV rule.
2 Tim 2:11: “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us”
…unless we are telling lies in order to subvert science.
This is nothing new. Allties and the mercury militia have been doing this from day one.
This is nothing new. Allties and the mercury militia have been doing this from day one. They just aren’t so clever as to “represent” both points of view.
What is an Alltie? (Allty??)
Hmmm… that is different. I don’t know if I agree with their tactics but at least they are being creative. I guess I would have to read more of their actual activities before I make any real comments.
z.
Things like this are why NPOV policy is the fundamental failing of Wikipedia. It makes WP an experiment in postmodern chaos, not in encyclopedia construction.
Again, reality is not a fucking democracy.
This kind of thing is exactly the reason why I never read wiki or recommend it anymore.
open is good, but it really does go to the issue:
“science is NOT a democracy”.
As currently constructed, Wiki is a failure as a source of accurate content.
At best, I view it just like an encyclopedia; a useful place to start looking for terms and issues that should then be tracked down in the primary literature, provided you don’t have a better place to start (like a review article) already.
I demonstrated this very thing to the well known and insane Larry Fafarman, by chaning an entry he constantly referred wrt an aspect of selection when he posted on PT.
He then proceeded, without pause, to promulgate the error I myself had placed in the entry.
It didn’t slow him down one bit when I pointed out to him that I actually changed the entry myself; he still utilizes wiki as his primary reference source to this day.
anybody who chooses to do so is just as insane as old Larry.
Christocrats do seem exceedingly fond of subversive conspiracies (which surely contributes to their tendency to see them everywhere).
Consider the recent exposure of a neocon/Catholic campaign to promote political schisms within the major US Protestant denominations, as detailed at Media Transparency: http://www.mediatransparency.com/storyprinterfriendly.php?storyID=142
This wouldn’t be at all surprising. Creationists really aren’t necessarily stupid–just wrong, deluded, and dedicated to advocating a stupid point of view.
I would be remiss if I didn’t comment by saying:
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
oh, and not to step on Dan’s toes, his post appeared while I wast typing my previous one.
I haven’t looked in a while, but the page on bigfoot used to be hysterical as a result of this kind of crap. (hey, that’s a religion too, as far as I’m concerned.)
I don’t see what the big problem is. One can satisfy NPOV without compromising the science by writing something to the effect of “Although some people believe X, scientists agree that Y.” So you include the POV of the large number of people that believe X (which is interesting information from a cultural perspective) while also saying that the experts agree on something else (thus legitimately implying that the first group is wrong).
If, say, a small minority of experts don’t believe Y, then NPOV does not require that you even mention them (see section “Undue weight” in the NPOV article).
I never gave Wikipedia much thought until I saw Neil Gaiman’s entry on it (scroll down):
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2006/05/what-bears-do-on-lawn.html
Now I still just ignore it totally but wish that it wasn’t always the first few results of a google search.
Wiki is a wonderful, and of course very limited, tool. ABSOLUTELY its greatest strength is that it is warts-and-all democratic, like the Internet itself. When it becomes less-so, it will becomes (perhaps) more “accurate” (and much, much more conventional) and less interesting to a set of people that would not usually bother to become interested in ANY science anywhere.
The pages under question which I follow, “Evolution” and “Dinosaur,” have markedly IMPROVED in both substance and eradication of the pseudo-NPOV creationist bullshit. If anything, the people I call “creationist/ID info-terrorists” have burned away any sympathy they originally had with the wishy-washy but honest.
People who want science need to read texts written by scientists, at the very least. Wiki is there as inspiration, as a pointer, and NOT as a definition of “reality.”
[Warning: anger follows]
As for the sort of “scientist” or (groupie) that offers up the FUCKING DUMB OPINION that “reality is NOT a democracy,” just offer your own POV to the rest of us and we shall worship it! Feet of clay and all! (How fucking head-up-the-ass self-righteously vain can a non-fundie be? We now have a measure.)
This is disheartening, since I like referring creationists to wikipedia sources when they complain that talkorigins has some sort of ‘bias’ agains Christianity.
I may have to revisit that….SH
I ran into the same thing, but a lesser version, while working on the Davis Wiki. (The largest city wiki in the world) http://www.daviswiki.org
I found a group of anti-abortion anti-contraception, anti-sex editors in a “pro-life” student club who were editing with the intent to keep people from getting abortions, using contraception, or even having sex, through their edits on various pages of the wiki. I wrote a post about it:
http://www.inoculatedmind.com/?p=40
Wikis can be a great way to put information together, but sometimes, people with ideologies hijack their ability to rapidly edit pages. Eventually, malicious editors need to be restricted and banned, but in order to maintain a valuable resource for information, it must be watched by people who care. As I understand it, many pages on the wikipedia website are so contentious that they are restricted to high-level editors. But even then, some malicious people can be in that category.
(How fucking head-up-the-ass self-righteously vain can a non-fundie be? We now have a measure.)
indeed, but perhaps not the one you envision.
Wiki is no better a reference than a worldbook enclyclopedia.
fine for a first place to look, as I said, but nothing to rely on as a primary source.
I’d have no hesitation to send my kids searching there, provided whatever they found they would then verify in the primary literature.
You seem to have a difficulty in distinguishing between “accurate” and “entertaining”.
“As for the sort of “scientist” or (groupie) that offers up the FUCKING DUMB OPINION that “reality is NOT a democracy,” just offer your own POV to the rest of us and we shall worship it!”
Not meaning to be condescending here, but I don’t think you really get it. Because reality is not a democracy, no one person can impose his or her view on others, no matter how many sympathizers they have. Nor can they set themselves up as the abitrators of reality. But they can describe reality, or part of it, or live in a reality-based manner (using reality to base descisions, for example). They can also insist that others attempting to describe reality do so using facts rather than unsupported opinion or mysticism. This can help in the overall effort to determine and understand reality on all levels, which is essentially what science is at its core.
“fine for a first place to look, as I said, but nothing to rely on as a primary source.”
I’m not understanding how this makes Wikipedia any different from any other non primary source?* And who would treat a self described free-for-all-user-edited-database as gospel in the first place?
I’m totally not getting this anti-wiki thing going on here.
*and for that matter, what exactly do you have in mind as a catch all “primary source”? The kinds of questions and factoids where Wikipedia is often most useful typically aren’t the sorts of things journal articles are written about. What primary source do I look at to find out what the history of Reverand Phelps was, for instance? (this was the most recent thing I read about on Wikipedia. Quite a mouthful that).
Gee, just think of the bucks these brainiacs could make for the congregation by selling bibles and bumper stickers on the Internet. Hell, maybe even on e-bay. The church’s coffers could floweth over in no time, but, they probably already are overflowing, AND UNTAXED at that.
I’m not understanding how this makes Wikipedia any different from any other non primary source?*
it doesn’t, that was my point. I bash wiki only slightly more than i would a paper-based encyclopedia, and that only because of the variable moderation on wiki.
And who would treat a self described free-for-all-user-edited-database as gospel in the first place?
you obviously haven’t spent much time debating on the internet. Lot’s of folks utilize it as not only their primary, but their only reference, for better or worse.
what exactly do you have in mind as a catch all “primary source”?
standard peer reviewed journal publications. like all scientists utilize as the primary source of reference.
The kinds of questions and factoids where Wikipedia is often most useful typically aren’t the sorts of things journal articles are written about.
that is an entirely overgeneralized statement on your part. Not only is “most useful” entirely subjective, but the breadth of content in wiki covers both popular culture and scientific topics equally, though not always accurately, as was my point.
as to Fred “felcher” Phelps; yes, you could start with wiki, but would you necessarily end there? Would you rely on wiki to be the end all be all for what Phelps is all about?
or would you actually try to track down some of the things Phelps himself has published?
People here apparently aren’t very familiar with Wikipedia policies. Part of the NPOV policy is the notion of “undue weight”, which is used to keep unscientific BS out of the articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
Even when unscientific BS is included, it can only be included in a factual way, by stating that certain people hold the view, not by stating the view as fact. Actual science (or any other substantiated matter), OTOH, can be stated as fact. NPOV is not at all the same as the “balanced” BS of modern journalism that gives lies and truths equal weight, but is in fact an encapsulation of objectivity by sticking strictly to evidence.
Of course, the fundies (as well as people with other ideologies) constantly try to undermine NPOV by misrepresenting it, misrepresenting material as NPOV, or simply ignoring NPOV. But it’s not the NPOV policy that is at fault.
Indeed! Well, you have identified something I very much consider to be true: the truly “entertaining” and the truly “accurate” are very, very, very difficult to distinguish.
Ichthyic, I doubt we have any actual disagreements (I know you, I presume, from ATBC) but my own interests are precisely in understanding, just for myself, the degree to which “reality” is, as you put it, “democratic.” And it has much to due with what I could easily choose to call “entertainment.”
But it’s not the NPOV policy that is at fault.
indeed not. It’s the enforcement of the policy that is. In short, there is no way to enforce it and have wiki remain essentially “unmoderated”.
Wiki is absolutely better than a paper encyclopedia, if only for its ability to quickly grow articles about obscure web-culture that I want to have a quick overview of.
uh, reality really is not a democracy. Nor is science. That’s why science journals run their content past an anonymous refereeing system comprised of recognized experts, rather than running scientific papers by celebrity judges or the audience of Big Brother.
Calling a different viewpoint “FUCKING DUMB” is hardly endearing.
“And who would treat a self described free-for-all-user-edited-database as gospel in the first place?”
you obviously haven’t spent much time debating on the internet. Lot’s of folks utilize it as not only their primary, but their only reference, for better or worse.
That’s not the same as treating it as gospel. And it isn’t possible to use Wikipedia as an “only reference” because Wikipedia articles themselves are full of references. When there’s a dispute about the factuality of a claim, the claim is either removed, referenced, or has a “citation needed” tag added to it. And if you know of a case where that isn’t true, you can make it true.
“reality” is, as you put it, “democratic.”
actually, that wasn’t me. In fact, the only person to say that was yourself, I assume paraphrasing from the general pop culture saying.
I stated the “science is not a democracy” subsection, which is far more accurate.
I suspect the entertainment value you find in wiki is due precisely to the same factors that make ATBC an entertaining place to spend time, on occasion.
It’s always entertaining to hear all viewpoints on a subject, but that does not make for a necessarily simultaneously accurate depiction.
Think about the very basis for why we reject teaching ID in science classes, and you will realize the point I am making here.
indeed not. It’s the enforcement of the policy that is. In short, there is no way to enforce it and have wiki remain essentially “unmoderated”.
That’s absurd; Wikipedia is constantly moderated. Freedom to edit is not freedom from moderation. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all; there are administrators, who are proven adherents to policy, and can have that authority stripped for violation of policy. And those administrators can sanction people with temporary or permanent bans for violating policy. In addition, Wikipedia is moving towards policies that restrict access, for instance restricting creation of new articles or editing of controversial articles to established registered editors.
And it isn’t possible to use Wikipedia as an “only reference” because Wikipedia articles themselves are full of references.
that’s essentially incorrect, references require that someone look them up and read them. If only the creobots we argue with all the time would bother to look up references listed, rather than just reading the surface content of the articles in wiki, a lot of the idiocy would just go away.
If i place a link to a picture in a wiki article, instead of the picture itself, is that the same thing?
only if someone takes the time to click on the link and look at the picture.
And if you know of a case where that isn’t true, you can make it true.
only for as long as somebody else doesn’t think otherwise and change it back, or to something different.
Nothing beats good ground based intel.
Wikipedia is not a free-for-all; there are administrators, who are proven adherents to policy, and can have that authority stripped for violation of policy
not absurd. how often have you seen this happen? wiki is HUGE and inherently has limitations as to what can be moderated and what cannot.
90% of the “moderation” i have seen is simply based on the majority viewpoint for a particular topic.
you may be able to pick out some individual topics where official moderation has taken place, but you’d be hard pressed to say that is the case generally.
I use Wikipedia every day, profeshonally as a Librarian. It’s the go to source for quick and mostly reliable birth and death day dates, as it’s kept very current. Also, I catalog comic books and they have the most detailed entries on the publishing histories, print runs and major creators. Sure, some of the more technical articles need some work but it takes just as much time to fix wikipedia as it does to bitch about it.
as to Fred “felcher” Phelps; yes, you could start with wiki, but would you necessarily end there? Would you rely on wiki to be the end all be all for what Phelps is all about?
or would you actually try to track down some of the things Phelps himself has published?
Unless you’re a paid researcher investigating Fred Phelps, referring to what Wikipedia says, which has numerous links to interviews and news reports about Phelps, is far better than what most people — including you (STJ, right?) — usually do on the web, which is just spout off without any citation at all.
In addition, Wikipedia is moving towards policies that restrict access, for instance restricting creation of new articles or editing of controversial articles to established registered editors.
hey, that’s good news. The reason why that is happening is for the very things I noted about wiki to begin with.
perhaps in a few years, this kind of enforcement policy will become defacto on every topic posted to wiki, but it sure isn’t de riguer at this point in time, and I truly cannot see how every topic can be micromanaged to the degree implied.
I still see no reason to back away from the position that wiki is essentially a giant worldbook encycolpedia that works fine for entertainment, and as a first place to get ideas on a topic one knows little about. It is not now and likely never will be the best source of primary information though.
I still would recommend a general search first, with whatever search engine one prefers, and then to track down specifics within the primary literature itself, rather than rely on encyclopedic references.
not absurd. how often have you seen this happen?
Frequently; these events are logged, if you really want to know.
The fact is, you’re a bullshitter, and your posts have little value beyond entertainment; certainly less value than the material in Wikipedia.
So, given that NPOV mandates viewpoints
…. published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ….,
together with the prevalence of belief in creation or ID, does the Wikipedia evolution page get divvied up proportional to belief systems? If so, can we throw in the rest of the world on a population weighted basis – if so, China would help immensely.
The fact is, you’re a bullshitter, and your posts have little value beyond entertainment; certainly less value than the material in Wikipedia.
and you’re sounding more and more like a fanboy, for reasons i really can’t comprehend.
I’ve personally changed topics on wiki ranging from parallel evolution to movie factoids.
did i need to apply for moderation?
nope.
did anybody correct what I wrote?
nope. regardless of whether it was erroneous or not.
so yeah, not only did i spend time on wiki, but i spent time experimenting with wiki as well. This was about 6 months ago, can you truthfully say that much has changed in the last 6 months?
You can hold out as much hope as you would like for wiki. I’ll stick to actual peer-reviewed journal articles, thanks much.
as to bullshite, you’re certainly welcome to your opinion, but you haven’t given any real evidence to indicate such.
You’re coming across as needlessly pedantic and obtuse here Ichthyic.
And I’m an academic, so I’m clear on what a peer reviewed journal is. Thanks though.
Frequently; these events are logged, if you really want to know.
i do actually. can you document the percentage of topics on wiki that have had official moderation over say, the last 2 years?
You could prove me wrong in heartbeat if you can show me that the vast majority of topics on wiki are officially moderated on a regular basis, and that such moderation utilizes the primary literature to make corrections, and not just by the contributors themselves.
Or, if you have oodles of time to waste, we could randomly pick topics on wiki to see just how accurate they are, and who corrects/contributes to them.
either way works for me.
90% of the “moderation” i have seen is simply based on the majority viewpoint for a particular topic.
The major viewpoint as to what fits policy and what is verifiable via reputable sources, not the major viewpoint as to what is fact. Most editors are aware of and understand the policy of “no original research”, which basically says that the views, experiences, and other personal activities of editors aren’t relevant.
you may be able to pick out some individual topics where official moderation has taken place, but you’d be hard pressed to say that is the case generally.
It’s the case when there is an unresolvable dispute as to what is or is not policy — usually because some ideologue is doing disruptive POV pushing rather than participating in consensus — not consensus on what is fact, but consensus on what is appropriate content per policy.
As you are clearly not well informed on these matters, your statements aren’t of much value. It’s amusing, in a way, that you talk about primary sources and the weaknesses of Wikipedia as a reliable source and yet expect people to take what you say seriously. I suggest that people go and study Wikipedia, its policies and procedures, and how they work out in practice, rather than taking anything said in this thread as gospel.
You’re coming across as needlessly pedantic and obtuse here Ichthyic.
That’s because he is pedantic and obtuse, and a bullshitter.
f you have oodles of time to waste
No, and I’ve already wasted more than enough time with you. As I said, “these events are logged, if you really want to know”. But you play the same stupid “prove me wrong” games as the IDiots. Goodbye.
You’re coming across as needlessly pedantic and obtuse here Ichthyic.
pedantic? how so?
obtuse?? even less so. I’m certainly being as straightforward as possible, perhaps even too much so given that apparently I’m insulting so many wiki fans here.
And I’m an academic, so I’m clear on what a peer reviewed journal is. Thanks though.
That’s nice. I was an academic too. published in the science literature even. which makes it all the more strange you would say you were clear on what a peer reviewed journal is when previously you asked:
*and for that matter, what exactly do you have in mind as a catch all “primary source”?
you asked, i thought it was obvious, but I gave you a response anyway.
sorry if you found it pedantic; perhaps you should have made your question clearer?
Gosh, a complete misrepresentation of the NPOV policy. No, not all views must be represented and demonstrably incorrect information is not included or quickly removed from Wikipedia.
“Threw,” huh? Excuse me while I enjoy a brief chuckle.
When? Where? What subjects? Where are the examples?
Unsurprisingly, you all unquestioningly swallow this without seeing one whit of evidence, of course.
No, and I’ve already wasted more than enough time with you. As I said, “these events are logged, if you really want to know”. But you play the same stupid “prove me wrong” games as the IDiots. Goodbye.
so you proceed to claim i make no specific reference, then when I ask for your reference to clarify your point, you refuse.
and you claim I’m the one who’s acting like an IDiot?
I’m more than happy to be proven wrong about wiki. My current arguments are based on actual experimentation with wiki myself, but obviously my time is limited as well. Does that sound like a creobot to you?
You’re making gross assumptions about my nature and argument that aren’t warranted.
I don’t understand why some appear to be so sensitive about this particular issue, but perhaps we can hash this out some other time then. As you know, I spend time on ATBC, and I have seen you poke your head in there a few times.
I would encourage you to make a thread there to continue this whenever you wish.
I have no problems with working out the details of exactly how wiki works, and what its relative value is as a contributor of accurate information.
ITMT, i feel all I’m doing is further pissing off the wiki fanclub here, and I’ve already made every worthwhile point I felt I needed to.
So I’ll evidently make the majority pleased and bow out of this thread at this point.
yawn
Hey, Jinxy, you’re ignoring a bunch of questions at the “Breeders, thank God for science” thread. How ’bout you answer them first? Your, uh, ‘credibility’ is at stake.
Since we’re being pedantic, “primary source” is history jargon for a document originating from the time/place/person you are studying. Most people use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which are generally classified as tertiary sources, which are compilations and distillations of primary and secondary sources (secondary sources being commentary about said time/person/place, based on primary sources.)
Don’t ya just love jargon? And I second the librarian – as an historian, I use it to check very mundane facts, like death dates, though I would never use at as ultimate authority on anything – except Wikipedia itself.
i feel all I’m doing is further pissing off the wiki fanclub here
Said exactly like any IDiot troll who says that scientists have “faith” in evolution just because they challenge misconceptions about it. Wikipedia is neither gospel nor as arbitrary as you portray it.
like i said, feel free to make a topic to support your contentions over at ATBC. That is, whenever you feel you are finished mischaracterizing my arguments here, and making ridiculously inappropriate analogies in order to attempt to insult me, apparently.
I’m willing to be convinced, as I stated. you seem to have no inkling to provide actual evidence to do so, however.
Maybe you will feel so inclined at a different time and place.
You could prove me wrong in heartbeat if you can show me that the vast majority of topics on wiki are officially moderated on a regular basis, and that such moderation utilizes the primary literature to make corrections, and not just by the contributors themselves.
Moronic strawman. I said nothing about “the vast majority of topics” being “officially moderated on a regular basis”. Primary and secondary literature is used to make corrections, via contributors. Contributors generally adhere to wikipedia policy, and when they don’t they may be sanctioned, depending upon how egregious and offensive the violation (someone has to care enough to bring a complaint and make a case). Wikipedia is a self-correcting community based on a self-correcting methodology; not as effectively as the scientific community and the scientific method, but there are similarities.
Or, if you have oodles of time to waste, we could randomly pick topics on wiki to see just how accurate they are, and who corrects/contributes to them.
Nature magazine did such a study and found that Wikipedia has 4 mistakes for every 3 in Encyclopedia Brittanica (EB of course criticized the study).
attempt to insult me
You’re the asshole employing ad hominems like “fanboys”.
I’m willing to be convinced, as I stated. you seem to have no inkling to provide actual evidence to do so, however.
I have no obligation to convince you.
you seem to have no inkling to provide actual evidence to do so, however.
Nor you, you hypocritical bullshitter. As I said, anyone who really wants to know can go study Wikipedia, its policies and practices. I’m not about to do your work for you, especially when it is clear that you already have your mind made up.
?
I thought you were done with me. I guess my invitation to discuss this when you had more time wasn’t needed.
Moronic strawman.
only if I was mischaracterizing my own argument, which I was not.
I said nothing about “the vast majority of topics” being “officially moderated on a regular basis”.
Actually, you implied that it was quite frequent, as I supposedly coudl find out by checking the logs.
I merely asked if you knew if such moderation had become REALTIVELY commonplace amongst all topics on wiki, as that has NOT been my impression from my limited experiments on wiki.
I gave you credit for pointing out changes in adminstrative policy here:
In addition, Wikipedia is moving towards policies that restrict access, for instance restricting creation of new articles or editing of controversial articles to established registered editors
which i was not aware of, and the very reason I asked if you had any evidence to support the idea that the majority of topics on wiki are now moderated in such fashion.
did you think the reasons for implementing the policy you note were entirely arbitrary?
of course not, the reasons are for the very things I noted, and PZ noted in his post.
You still have the opportunity to show me via the logfiles that the majority of topics on wiki are moderated at this point, otherwise, how does your argument so far invalidate my contention that wiki by and large is NOT moderated, and so contains many uncorrected errors that could be discovered by reference to the primary literature on the topics?
again, all I’m doing is pointing out that wiki is little more than a glorified encyclopedia, and it’s ALWAYS best to verify everything seen there via the primary literature itself.
why is this such a contentious issue for you that you feel a need to characterize me as a supporter of ID, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue?
do you have a personal stake in wiki or something?
BTW, there are bots run by administrators that revert vandalism, which could be counted as “the vast majority of topics on wiki are officially moderated on a regular basis”. Mis- and dis-information that isn’t obviously vandalism takes longer — a tautology, really — to be corrected by the community, which is for the most part ethical, and there are mechanisms that enforce ethics and weed out consistently unethical actors. These mechanisms are, of course, not perfect.
You’re the asshole employing ad hominems like “fanboys”.
so i take it you consider being called a fanboy an equivalent insult to being equated with a creobot and called an asshole, eh?
You mentioned the logfiles as supportive of your argument. all i asked was how so?
I mentioned specific topics i modified as experiments. did you want me to edit some topics for you and see what happens?
or doesn’t it strike you as odd that I even CAN arbitrarily modify a particular topic to my whim, and as long as I’m intelligent about it, likely it won’t be caught.
kinda like PZ was trying to point out in the very post that started this thread. or did you entirely disagree with his argument as well?
only if I was mischaracterizing my own argument, which I was not.
So you’re too stupid to know what a strawman is? Perhaps you should look it up on wikipedia.
do you have a personal stake in wiki or something?
I have a personal stake in challenging assholes and hypocrites like yourself. Not a single one of your posts here contains a substantiated fact. Your “contentions” are just smoke.
Here is a relevant page, peer reviewed by Nature in December 2005 (see discussion tab).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
There are years of history available from the history tab. Seems like a lot of work has gone into the several hundred “extant” words.
to be corrected by the community, which is for the most part ethical,
ethics and accuracy are not always synonymous with one another.
which again, relates directly back to the point I am making, and the general “pedantic” point that “science is not a democracy”.
Like i said, this seems like a very important issue to you, as you feel the need to insult me and mischaracterize my arguments in order to make your own point. If this is that important to you, please go back to the logs when you have time and find out one way or the other whether the majority of topics on wiki are officially moderated or not.
You implied, rightly so, that this is not the case when you noted that officially moderation currently occurs only when there is a reported, unresolved dispute wrt a specific topic.
If I’m wrong about that, please clarify.
so i take it you consider being called a fanboy an equivalent insult to being equated with a creobot and called an asshole, eh?
No, it’s far worse, because its an ad hominem that poisons the well by implying that what people say must be wrong because it’s self-serving, as with your “personal stake” nonsense. I didn’t equate you with a creobot, I pointed out specific statements of yours that use the same logic. As for you being an asshole, that’s like observing that bears shit in the woods.
ethics and accuracy are not always synonymous with one another.
Another stupid strawman. If you can’t understand how ethics in the context of following Wikipedia policy supports accuracy, then you’re an idiot. Apparently you’re an idiot.
*sigh* it would seem that your more interested in insulting me than providing substantive arguments for your position.
are you having fun?
I already stated that my experiences and opinions are based on direct experimentation on wiki topics themselves (like the topic on parallel evolution), and asked if you would like me to edit a topic to demonstrate. ah, another topic I remember playing with Fafarman on was the topic on “macroevolution”. I modified a good segment of that one to reflect the idea that most evolutionary biologists don’t use the term “macroevolution” when speaking of evolution in general, contrary to how larry was mis-utilizing the term in creobot fashion when he used to post on PT. At first, I changed it something totally erroneous, just to see if he would use it as a reference, which he of course did (It took a week before anybody noticed and changed it back). then i changed it to something far more accurate, which was modified further by others and still is there.
I don’t know how i could document that specific instance for you, as it happened over 6 months ago… or maybe you could check the logfiles and see for yourself?
I guess you are only interested in insulting me, which is fine, but if you want to actually support your argument, feel free to start any time.
any time you can correctly accuse me of spouting bullshit, feel free, and I will happily correct myself. Inlike the “IDiots” you for some reason accuse me of being, I’m happy to change my mind about things if shown a good reason to do so.
so… do so.
any time you can correctly accuse me of spouting bullshit, feel free, and I will happily correct myself.
Right there you are spouting bullshit, and lying. The same will go for any response of yours.
No, it’s far worse, because its an ad hominem that poisons the well by implying that what people say must be wrong because it’s self-serving, as with your “personal stake” nonsense.
oh well then…
you’re a fanboy.
phhht.
could you have included more erroneous jargon in a single sentence?
doubtful.
the reason i asked if you had a stake in this is simply because you feel the need to keep arguing and insulting, even after you said you were “done with me”.
I’m just sitting here eating my dinner, and puzzling over why you find the issue so contentious.
what’s your excuse?
If you have a direct refutation of my argument, please expound on it, or go take some medication to calm yourself down.
At first, I changed it something totally erroneous, just to see if he would use it as a reference
So you put misinformation in a public place, just so you would win a fight with a troll? ASSHOLE!!
which he of course did (It took a week before anybody noticed and changed it back).
And some erroneous results in science lasted for decades, even centuries. But it was eventually noticed, and corrected.
then i changed it to something far more accurate, which was modified further by others and still is there.
And there you go, asshole.
the reason i asked if you had a stake in this is simply because you feel the need to keep arguing and insulting, even after you said you were “done with me”.
Which just shows I’m compulsive, you dumbfuck jackass.
If you have a direct refutation of my argument, please expound on it, or go take some medication to calm yourself down.
You have no argument, just baseless assertions. As I have said, anyone can go look — like Nature did.
Asshole.
Right there you are spouting bullshit, and lying. The same will go for any response of yours.
let’s see, so when you told us about the policy changes, and I agreed that was worthy of attention and a good thing, was I lying there?
If you are going to accuse me of lying, at least point out where I have done so.
Gees, you’re more wound up than I usually am, and that’s saying a lot. If you knew me like most on PT and ATBC do – in fact, you checked out the thread “skeptic” posted on ATBC, that’s about as wound up as i get, and even then, for much of that thread I spent a lot of time justifying my anger towards skeptic’s position, and you yourself quickly saw the flaws in logic and fact that were rampant in his posts. I even noted how quickly you figured it out, as opossed to many who prefered to keep arguing with him.
funny now you would act in a totally opposite fashion.
again, it’s why i asked, as you seemed quite logical and reasonable in your posts on that thread.
I’m just sitting here eating my dinner, and puzzling over why you find the issue so contentious.
The contentiousness is with a hypocritial bullshitting asshole; it could be any issue.
Ichthyic, truth machine, please take it somewhere else. You may have had a point somewhere, but it’s been buried under the insults. Exchange email addresses or something.
again, it’s why i asked, as you seemed quite logical and reasonable in your posts on that thread.
That’s because I am logical and reasonable. But when I oppose your bullshit, you think not.
Also, you really are quite dim. I read skeptic’s posts after the fact, and his errors were just as evident to me as to the people who had pointed them out on the fly over many months. I was “quick to figure it out” because I was able to read the material in one sitting, rather than wait months for it to complete.
You have no argument, just baseless assertions. As I have said, anyone can go look — like Nature did.
huh? didn’t i just detail how i came to my “baseless” assertions?
indeed anyone can go look, and i invited you to come and do so with me, and you refused. offer is still open.
as to the nature article, maybe you could clarify what is meant by:
Nature magazine did such a study and found that Wikipedia has 4 mistakes for every 3 in Encyclopedia Brittanica (EB of course criticized the study).
one, how does this improve on the accuracy of wiki, and two, how is that relevant to the point i was making?
Indeed, the nature study compared wiki to EB. why do you suppose they compared one encyclopedia to another?
lastly, how exactly is it that you feel I’m being an asshole to you?
am i being too condescending? what?
Also, you really are quite dim. I read skeptic’s posts after the fact, and his errors were just as evident to me as to the people who had pointed them out on the fly over many months. I was “quick to figure it out” because I was able to read the material in one sitting, rather than wait months for it to complete.
funny, most of us, myself included, figured it out on the very first post he made in the thread. perhaps you missed it. I used to post there with the handle “Sir_Toejam”, so i guess that part’s understandable. but then, if you were apparently as quick as you accuse me of being dim, you might have caught that as well.
oh well.
Ichthyic, truth machine, please take it somewhere else.
It’s bad enough that it’s here; I don’t want to pollute somewhere else with it. But perhaps the same can’t be true for someone who intentionally put misinformation in a wikipedia article just so he can score a point against Larry Fafarman.
You may have had a point somewhere, but it’s been buried under the insults.
The point was made in posts preceding the exchange with the intentional misinformer.
Exchange email addresses or something.
The last thing I need is his polluting my mailbox. But I do apologize for the pollution here.
Ichthyic, truth machine, please take it somewhere else. You may have had a point somewhere, but it’s been buried under the insults. Exchange email addresses or something.
hey, i tried! I asked him specifically if we could continue this over on ATBC, but he felt content to insult me here.
still more than happy to continue the discussion over there.
if you were apparently as quick as you accuse me of being dim, you might have caught that as well.
Yes, of course, because I didn’t write “STJ, right?” up above.
oh well.
I do hope that means you’re done.
The point was made in posts preceding the exchange with the intentional misinformer.
accuracy and ethics, remember?
Yes, of course, because I didn’t write “STJ, right?” up above.
LOL. so then your argument as to my dimness is as invalid as your current one, based on your own admission, as you should have noted the objections I made to skeptic on the first page on posts, eh?
yes, i do grow weary of your childish insults. I still remain interested in whether one can extract the infomration on % of topics under moderation at wiki, so if you actually do want to have a discussion on topic, feel free to start one on ATBC.
I promise I won’t even call you a fanboy.
*snicker*
hey, i tried! I asked him specifically if we could continue this over on ATBC, but he felt content to insult me here.
Hey, I take responsibility for my role in the pollution here. It was up to you whether to continue to respond to me; no one put a gun to your head.
accuracy and ethics, remember?
I remember that you said that your intentional misinformation was eventually corrected. The Wikipedia processes do not guarantee immediate or perfect accuracy, but they have been very effective in producing a far more accurate result than anyone thought possible when it started, and show the value of a consensus-based process to which even riffraff and intentional deceivers have access.
Hey, I take responsibility for my role in the pollution here. It was up to you whether to continue to respond to me; no one put a gun to your head.
it’s YOU who insisted on keeping this going, i’m merely responding to your continued misrepresantion of my arguments, and trying to elucidate where you figure I’m lying or misrepresenting yours.
I remember that you said that your intentional misinformation was eventually corrected.
but not by any official moderation, rather just the person who originally wrote the article changed it back to the original text, which wasn’t quite accurate to begin with.
that’s my point, which you keep missing, over and over and over again.
There’s more to that text besides, which I’d be happy to share with you when you come down off your sugar high (over at ATBC).
yes, I’m done with you here. I do hope you will consider the offer to actually have a reasonable discussion over on ATBC, since you seem to have spent some time researching the logfiles on wiki, but I rather think you prefer insult over substance.
cheers
so then your argument as to my dimness is as invalid as your current one
No, it’s not — your dimness was evidenced by your silly comments about my quickness, and nothing I have written invalidates it.
based on your own admission, as you should have noted the objections I made to skeptic on the first page on posts, eh?
I never said you didn’t make objections on the first page of posts. Sheesh. You wrote “I even noted how quickly you figured it out, as opossed to many who prefered to keep arguing with him.” That’s doubly dim, because not only does my putting up a half dozen posts months after the discussion began not demonstrate any quickness on my part, but those who “prefered to keep arguing with him” surely had “figured it out” before presenting their arguments. That they continued to argue just shows compulsiveness, the same that both you and I are displaying here; it says nothing about quickness, dimwit. And that both of us are still posting here shows that both of us are, or can be, compulsive assholes. At least I understand this.
Goodbye. Hopefully I’ll stick with it this time. You might help by not continuing our mutual baiting.
it’s YOU who insisted on keeping this going
It takes two, you irresponsible asshole.
but not by any official moderation
Nor did I say otherwise — that’s a strawman.
that’s my point, which you keep missing, over and over and over again.
I haven’t missed it; that’s a falsehood. Your point is a strawman, because it doesn’t take “official moderation” to achieve a high level of accuracy; the structures in place at Wikipedia, which include trust mechanisms, consensus mechanisms, specified policies, etc. are sufficient. Continuing blather about “official moderation” is question begging — the dispute is not whether there is “official moderation” of “the vast majority of articles”, it’s whether that is necessary or desirable or even possible.
yes, I’m done with you here.
Thank goodness.
Re: “stupid point of view”
Wow. Who knew wikipedia would be so contentious?
Last call. Next flaming insult, and I’ll close this thread.
I still remain interested in whether one can extract the infomration on % of topics under moderation at wiki
I never said anything about that. What I said was
“there are administrators, who are proven adherents to policy, and can have that authority stripped for violation of policy”, and “these events are logged, if you really want to know”. But apparently what I wrote, the actual point I made, was completely ignored:
So all the talk of “official moderation” of “the vast majority of articles” is aimed at a strawman of Ichthyic’s own construction.
Right, no more flaming insults, just correcting of errors and misrepresentations. For instance,
or doesn’t it strike you as odd that I even CAN arbitrarily modify a particular topic to my whim, and as long as I’m intelligent about it, likely it won’t be caught.
No, that doesn’t strike me as odd because it’s no different than any other kind of fraud, which can go undetected for a long time; take Cyril Burt’s twin study data — which of course you can read about at wikipedia, with references, and information about the arguments both for and against it being a fraud (most people think it’s settled and may be surprised to see that material; they may even be unhappy that the material is there if they happen not to agree with it, but that’s the strength of the NPOV policy). But according to Ichthyic’s own words, his (intentional) misinformation was caught: “It took a week before anybody noticed and changed it back”.
Somewhere above, probably way above the epithets, someone said, “science is NOT a democracy”. However, consensus IS a form of democracy important (and sometimes a hindrance) to science and to getting a paper through peer review. Think not — check into the history of endosymbiotic theory over the last 100 years.
Related food for thought:
“The man who cannot occasionally imagine events and conditions of existence that are contrary to the causal principle as he knows it will never enrich his science by the addition of a new idea.” – Max Planck
“If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy? …But we cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory…it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory.” – Stephen Hawking
And then,
“When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself.” – Mark Twain
Of course, it’s a given that at least one Wikipedian (Wikipediphile?) has noticed this Pharyngula post by now. I wonder how this little accountability game will play out. . . .
People, people, people. Could you keep it down a little in here? I can hear you guys yelling from the other side of the Internet…
[sigh]
Well I missed a good flame fest but I do have a pedantic point to add regarding Ichthyic’s use of “wiki” to refer to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a wiki but a wiki isn’t necessarily Wikipedia!
Sorry, it got under my skin a bit.
someone said, “science is NOT a democracy”.
Yes, the someone who wrote “This kind of thing is exactly the reason why I never read wiki or recommend it anymore”, but then wrote “I’d have no hesitation to send my kids searching there, provided whatever they found they would then verify in the primary literature”. The same person who wrote “As currently constructed, Wiki is a failure as a source of accurate content” … because he intentionally planted false information in order to score a personal point against someone, false information that was detected and repaired by others a week later. The false information was not, of course, a result of “democracy” — there was no vote to include it — it was a result of fraud, and it stayed there while not noticed, not as a result of democratic participation. There is no structure that can prevent all fraud; consider that the doctrine of “corporate personhood” in U.S. law is in part a result of a clerk to the Supreme Court intentionally misrecording a decision, or that George Bush was made President in 2000 by the deliberate misapplication of the 14th amendment by partisan justices.
This complaint about the supposed “democracy” of wikipedia is really just rank elitism, disapproval that the hoi polloi can participate. And it’s shored up by fraudulent arguments that, because it’s possible for false information to be fraudulently inserted into wikipedia, that therefore it shouldn’t be read or recommended and is “a failure as a source of accurate content” — despite the huge amount of accurate information that it successfully provides — as if there were any guarantees that any source is 100% accurate.
In regard to Roger’s quotes: this is why “original research” is against wikipedia policy. The role of wikipedia editors is not to generate or examine evidence, but rather to provide it to readers for examination. It’s straightforward when there’s little or no dispute, but when there are disputes, the various views and who holds them are supposed to be presented with “appropriate” weight, where that depends largely on how widely the views are held and what sort of support those who hold them offer — for instance, the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion documents that there are many who think it isn’t a hoax, and who they are, but it nonetheless states that it is a hoax because numerous investigations demonstrate that and there’s no evidence to the contrary — if there were, it too would be presented.
Of course this process isn’t perfect and can be subverted, but that possibility does not make wikipedia a failure.
tell us the truth, you have OCD, don’t you?
No, comrade, it’s an acknowledgement that the hoi polloi are, in general, not very good at intellectual pursuits or rational, evidence-based decision-making, particularly not in large groups. In a country where half the people believe in stupid shit like creationism and UFOs and would rather vote away their own country’s foundation documents than let a gay couple they don’t even know get married, this should be fairly obvious.
And no, I’m not going to lower my intellectual standards just so you can feel good about yourself. If that makes me “elitist,” so be it.
It’s also possible, and far more likely, that false information can be inserted quite ingenuously into Wikipedia. As above, there are lots of people who genuinely believe some incredibly ridiculous things, and many of them feel the need to pollute Wikipedia with them. Some of those things are never fixed, because the people who put them up in the first place will constantly reintroduce whatever dumb thing they put up.
For example, the article for the Southwest Conference redirects to “Southwest Athletic Conference,” despite the fact that it never at any point in its history went by that name. The person who originally wrote the article had a screaming hissy fit when I suggested that this was blatantly incorrect and moved the article accordingly. I moved it, he moved it back. I moved it, he moved it back. This went on for weeks before I gave up, because there’s no point in arguing with the willfully stupid. So now there are people who go looking for the SWC and wind up being misinformed, all because some know-it-all schmuck in North Dakota couldn’t be bothered to take his dick out of his hand and admit that he was full of shit.
That false information can be deliberately inserted into articles is an artifact of the way the system works, not an exception to it. When you design a system that anyone can contribute to, that’s exactly what you’re going to get, for better or worse. And given human nature, it’s often for the worse. The near-constant vandalism and the increasingly large number of dilettantes who don’t even know how to use wiki-markup don’t help, either.
This went on for weeks before I gave up, because there’s no point in arguing with the willfully stupid.
Too bad you didn’t avail yourself of the structures in place to deal with such disputes.
FWIW, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/ttusw/00023/tsw-00023.html
seems to use “Southwest Conference” and “Southwest Athletic Conference” interchangably. Perhaps you’re right about not letting just anybody — like, say, you — edit. Oh, but you’re the good guy and the other guy is the bad guy … according to you. The fact is that these disputes can’t be settled simply by declaring oneself as “good at intellectual pursuits or rational, evidence-based decision-making” and those you disagree with as not.
Yeah, because that works. The vandals and the willfully stupid editors have even less faith in the dispute-resolution processes than I do, and absolutely no reason or ability to abide by them.
And that’s entirely independent of the fact that in most “dispute” cases, there isn’t actually any substantive dispute present, yet more often than not, the blatantly wrong viewpoint winds up being represented in articlespace anyway as an alleged concession to NPOV. Or the dispute is never settled, and the article becomes little more than a battleground in an endless flamewar.
In short, Wikipedia is more trouble than it’s worth, and not worth as much as either Jimbo or the cult-of-Wikipedia folks think it is. And the fact that its control structure is arbitrarily run and profoundly diffuse (except for the occasional Indisputable Decree from On-Highâ¢) doesn’t help, either.
As I noted, there are sanctions such as temporary (I’ve seen as much as a year) and permanent bans.
Here’s another page where “Southwest Conference” and “Southwest Athletic Conference” appear to be used interchangably:
http://swco.ttu.edu/Manuscripts/SWAC%20Press%20Release.htm
Read the fucking talk page, asshole. We went through this crap eight months ago, so unless you’re trying to prove my point for me, shut the fuck up.
Read the fucking talk page, asshole. We went through this crap eight months ago, so unless you’re trying to prove my point for me, shut the fuck up.
Well, I guess that counts as a “flaming insult”, so time to close this thread, PZ.
What happens if someone posts to WIKI, with the comment that…”Any comments made about ID being valis, or creatyionism, or a Young Earth are known lies”
????
Thank you for admitting that you didn’t bother to read the talk page before spouting off about it.
Sadly, I’ll bet you don’t even have the good sense to feel stupid about it. It’s so much easier to run away and hide behind the administrator. Unfortunately, the “he was mean to me, therefore I’m not stupid” argument doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny.
Oh, that wouldn’t even come close to passing NPOV muster, despite its rather obvious factual validity.
Thank you for admitting that you didn’t bother to read the talk page before spouting off about it.
I read it and observed that you were a dickhead there just as you are one here.
Unfortunately, the “he was mean to me, therefore I’m not stupid” argument doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny.
Uh, I didn’t make any such argument, or any other argument. PZ said he would close this thread upon the next “flaming insult”, and I assume he means what he said. Most of the previous flaming insults were my own, and of course I don’t think Ichthyic isn’t stupid just because I was mean to him.
Oh, that wouldn’t even come close to passing NPOV muster, despite its rather obvious factual validity.
It wouldn’t make it into the Encyclopedia Brittanica or any of Ichthyic’s “primary sources” either, dumbfuck.
I noticed the same sort of things. If the article is outside the realm of politics, religion, or science it’s pretty good. If you want an accurate view on some scifi show, Wikipedia is the best. The list of articles on Stargate SG-1 is unmatched.
However, there are things like “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” and “Argument from poor design” which I tend to check up on just to revert some edits. Or in the case of AfPD I just rerespond to the criticism which are pretty much made up. Sadly my great response “Nobody has studied the effects of increased efficiency in plants in such a way to make this determination possible. The origin of this comment is suggested to be a creationist’s hindquarters.” Got edited to remove the latter part.
It seems pretty stupid to have a list of objections which are all pretty much false. But, since the article needs an even hand even lies are left in because the truth is too damned biased.
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings, but it’s just that I have this damned low tolerance for stupidity, especially of the willful variety.
Of course, you can’t actually bring yourself to claim that I was wrong, because I wasn’t. That’s what all this was about, anyway, and I’d much rather be right than nice. Of course, of all the people around here, PZ is probably the one who would appreciate that attitude the most.
You being stupid necessarily precedes me being mean to you (not, as you imply, the other way around), and they’re definitely not causally related. Which was exactly my point. So that one went right over your head, too.
Brittanica says it by omission. The “evolution” article is 73 sections long, the “creationism” article, two paragraphs. Even in those two paragraphs, the general tenor of the article is pretty dismissive of the entire concept. And there are far more primary sources that correctly point out the inherent dishonesty of creationism than I’m sure you’d like to admit. So there’s something else you’re wrong about.
Keep going. I’m quickly becoming more amused than annoyed with you.
Or, I should say, “they definitely are causally related.”
And I’ll also add that the Brittanica’s “evolution” article would never make it past NPOV policy, either, so “would it make the Brittanica?” seems like a pretty stupid standard for WP to use. In general, the Brittanica is more permissive than WP, not less.
Dammit, it’s late…
The Brittanica is less permissive of “alternative” viewpoints, more permissive of undisputed facts being presented as actual facts, rather than just as the majority opinion.
“I’m sorry I hurt your feelings”
You didn’t hurt my feelings — that, along with the rest of your poorly reasoned drivel, shows what a moron you are.
To translate: “I can’t respond substantively to anything you’ve said, so I’m just going to insult you and hope you don’t notice the difference.”
Fuck off, troll.
“I can’t respond substantively to anything you’ve said, so I’m just going to insult you and hope you don’t notice the difference.”
Fuck off, troll.
Oh, did I hurt the poor widdle baby’s feelings? Boo hoo hoo. The fact is that you’re belligerent and retarded, a really nasty combination. I could respond substantively, but it’s all so stupid and you’re such a jackass that there’s really no point.
Yeah, sure, I believe you. No, really, I do.
Fuck off, troll.
Yeah, sure, I believe you. No, really, I do.
If you think I can’t give substantive responses then you’re retarded. If you think I think you can’t notice the difference between an insult and a substantive comment, then you’re retarded. The bottom line is, you’re retarded. And belligerent. A nasty combination.
It can be taken as axiomatic that if you could give substantive responses, you would have already done so. The fact is that you didn’t, and instead chose to be a feckless assgoblin, despite being given ample opportunity to do otherwise. You’ve just willingly admitted that. Based on this, I see no real reason to believe that you’re capable of providing a substantive response, regardless of what you say.
Of course, we both know that you’re entirely in the wrong either way, so this is all quite beside the point. And while I’m sure you think you’re successfully distracting me from that fact, you must know that all that chest-thumping of yours isn’t actually all that intimidating. So you might want to think about converting some of your prick-waving time into substantive-response-making time.
It can be taken as axiomatic that if you could give substantive responses, you would have already done so.
Only by a retard, Dan, only by a retard. Anyone half-way intelligent would recognize that it would be irrational to waste the time.
Isn’t it past your bedtime there in Texas? Are you staying up just so you can shout “Fuck you, troll” into the ether?
Retard.
Thank you for proving my point for me. You’re done.
Your grasp of proof is as poor as your grasp of axioms, retard.
BTW, Just to remind you, Dan, I was writing substantively until I received this from you:
at which point I kinda lost any motivation to send anything substantive your way.
While wikipedia isn’t all bad. Some of their science and most of their math articles (e.g. some of the QM stuff) are actually pretty good. Of course, some of the science articles are clearly just bad craftsmanship (e.g. their article on clusters – they couldn’t even get the friggin’ definition right).
I wouldn’t trust it any further than I can spit in a gale when it comes to issues that cross into politics or religion. I have noticed a pronounced tendency to tip-toe around the sensibilities of religious groups on a variety of subjects, such as misrepresenting unflattering facts about – say – the RCC’s German connection during the War as ‘allegations’ or ‘opinions.’
But outside of politically sensitive subjects, on which I would hesitate to trust any encyclopedia anyway, I have generally found wikipedia to be a handy reference.
And for the love of the Intelligent Designer, stop the friggin’ flame war!
Thanks.
– JS
their article on clusters – they couldn’t even get the friggin’ definition right
So help “them” out.
the RCC’s German connection during the War as ‘allegations’ or ‘opinions.’
So remove the weasel words and replace them with referenced material from reputable historians. And if reputable historians differ on some matter, then there’s no basis for calling it a fact — it isn’t enough that you believe it to be true.
Holy Brie! A certain couple on this thread outta get married, or at least add some jugglers and take it on the road.
Why not exchange e-mails somehow? Egads, how emberris’kin!
Why would I want to give my email address to someone who writes
just because I post material that questions whether he was correct in some dispute at wikipedia?