No matter how you slice it, the hero is never the guy who sacrifices everything he believes in to "get the job done."
Because let's face it, we're not talking about our actual "lives," we're talking about careers. I'd rather get a new job, and career than sell out on such a huge level.
Just to make sure I understand you, we should be right, just be right a little quieter? That sounds pretty dangerous to me. Where do we draw that line? Do we knowingly display inaccurate information just to appease "the public"?
Sorry, I'd rather be right and fired, than to help further deception. If we're changing the science we put in museums what hope does "the public" have of ever learning the truth?
Oddly enough I looked up epigenetics in Wikipedia a few weeks ago. I was reading an assignment from my writing professor and the word epigenetics turned up. I typed it into Wikipedia and read the first half of the page or so. I understood what it said; I wouldn't say that I had a full and deep understanding of the concept, but I knew enough to continue reading my homework.
Now, I am not a science expert by any means; I've only taken 100 and 200 level biology classes. All in all, I generally get what I need from Wilipedia; there's often far to much information for me, so I take what I need and leave. There have been times when I didn't understand all of the vocabulary in an article, so I looked up the words I didn't know, and then I know them.
Dumbing down Wikipedia certainly wouldn't serve me and I have a hard time thinking who it would benefit.
Peace,
CuriousMe
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how you slice it, the hero is never the guy who sacrifices everything he believes in to "get the job done."
Because let's face it, we're not talking about our actual "lives," we're talking about careers. I'd rather get a new job, and career than sell out on such a huge level.
Just to make sure I understand you, we should be right, just be right a little quieter? That sounds pretty dangerous to me. Where do we draw that line? Do we knowingly display inaccurate information just to appease "the public"?
Sorry, I'd rather be right and fired, than to help further deception. If we're changing the science we put in museums what hope does "the public" have of ever learning the truth?
Oddly enough I looked up epigenetics in Wikipedia a few weeks ago. I was reading an assignment from my writing professor and the word epigenetics turned up. I typed it into Wikipedia and read the first half of the page or so. I understood what it said; I wouldn't say that I had a full and deep understanding of the concept, but I knew enough to continue reading my homework. Now, I am not a science expert by any means; I've only taken 100 and 200 level biology classes. All in all, I generally get what I need from Wilipedia; there's often far to much information for me, so I take what I need and leave. There have been times when I didn't understand all of the vocabulary in an article, so I looked up the words I didn't know, and then I know them. Dumbing down Wikipedia certainly wouldn't serve me and I have a hard time thinking who it would benefit. Peace, CuriousMe