Without seeing your edit history, it's a bit hard to comment. However, did you source the material you added? If you don't, it probably will get removed or modified.
Actually, the answer is slightly more complex than that. A year ago, I would have left to Wikipedia's defense, and I would have been right to do so. However, while there are a lot of things to write about, people aren't really doing this. What would really be interesting would be the amount of edits to the Wikipedia namespace, as opposed to the main article namespace. It's the internal conflicts, navel-gazing and meta editing that is killing Wikipedia.
Sigh. I work with technology. I needed to know what BPEL meant. I looked up Wikipedia. It explained the general topic, and it linked me to a reasonable article from Oracle on the topic. I then determined what was being asked, forwarded to the developer who can answer this question, who then gave a more in-depth answer to the client.
Incompetence? Hardly. Client was happy, we were happy. Thank you Wikipedia! No thanks to faulty logic or inaccurate assumptions by anonymous slashdot editors.
From your emotive language, I see that I've upset you in some way. Not sure why, as my original post was only three short sentences. You might want to work on your anger management. To be honest, I don't really care if you assumed wrongly, I don't know you, and you don't know me. Your response doesn't affect my life, and it never will. All I merely did was note that the assumptions weren't accurate.
I note that you are making comments about whether I am competent about my job, yet you still don't know what I do. If my office blocks Wikipedia, oh well. I was only making the point that I found it quite useful for work, and in fact I gave you an example as to how I used the encyclopedia to direct a query quickly and efficiently, which the client was very pleased about. However, as you have pointed out, there are other sources, though probably not as accessible.
Your manuscript/date of birth comments don't really make much sense. Like you say, if there is a dispute about the date of birth, just say that it's not really known when the subject was born and explain the issue why that is. That's hardly OR, and it's normally a reasonable thing to describe in an article.
Incidently, to use your example, if you said that they were born on 1282 and cited the encyclopedia, it would make your citation wrong (or at the least, misleading). Therefore, you should be marked down.
1. What on earth are you talking about? I think you'll find that citing an encyclopedia in acadamic research or papers will get you marked down. Try it some day. It's not the purpose of an encyclopedia.
2. What rule are you talking about? See WP:DEADLINE. Directly refutes what you have just noted.
As for COI, nice try, but no cigar.:-) My interest in Wikipedia doesn't invalidate my comments. Try reading my comments from the perspective of one who doesn't like or need Wikipedia. Unless you can point out where I'm factually wrong, I don't see the problem.
1. Try reading the verifiability policy before posting this sort of rubbish. Nowhere does it say that the verifiability of a particular topic can be satisfied by "sufficient Google hits indicate belief in Greek gods". If you can find reliable sources (e.g. the EB, or perhaps an encyclopaedia of mythology) then that will be more than enough. There seems to be confusion here between the "Google test" for notability of websites and other topics that can be referenced from other sources.
2. Don't cite Wikipedia in academic research. I'm not sure how many times we have to say it! We have never said that Wikipedia should be used as a final source in a paper. We say: treat it like any other encyclopaedia and double-check it's facts.
Blissy, wouldn't your comment be astro-turfing for Wikipedia Review? However, despite the fact that you accuse me of astroturfing, it doesn't actually make my comments any less pertinent. At least I had the courage to post under my nom de pleum.
Not sure how to respond to your concerns, as they are just vague hand-waving, with no specific evidence to back up your arguments.
Uh, no. I doubt I've ever seen someone misunderstand the original research policy so blatantly. That policy is to prevent material being introduced that has no source. The verifiability policy says that sources must be accurate, reliable and verifiable. Precisely the opposite of the scenario you present.
Again, you assume wrongly, as I'm not offended. Seems to be a bit of a pattern forming. It's probably best not to assume you know something based on very little information. The problem as I see it is not with what I wrote, but with the way you are reading the information set forth in a fairly brief comment.
But, no, not really. I didn't need the sort of in-depth information required from a domain specific publication. All I needed was a basic understanding of what was being asked for, then I sent it to someone who had domain specific knowledge. The client didn't need me to answer their question, they just needed me to get someone who understood what was required. Wikipedia was more than adequate, and as I said we satisfied the client's needs very quickly and efficiently.
You don't need to look up specialist knowledge sources every time a technical question is asked. Granted, often you will, but as you can see in this case, Wikipedia was more than adequate. I agree that if I had needed to provide an in-depth answer then I would have looked up a better source, you'll get no argument from me about this. But for a quick overview of a particular topic, Wikipedia really can't be beat.
Interestingly, you assume wrongly. Perhaps rereading what I wrote might be nice? I deal with highly technical issues, but every now and again a client sends us a curveball. For instance, I was once asked if our product supported BPEL. I had no idea what that actually was, but a short look at Wikipedia helped point me in the right direction. I got the appropriate developer to answer the question.
Client, a fairly major bank, was actually very happy. They got the appropriate person quickly and with a minimum of fuss.
Two things: it costs money to issue patents, and secondly the patent office will totally collapse if they do that. Which might not be a bad thing, as it may mean that patents don't get passed in time, and it might force governments to reexamine the entire patent industry.
I disagree with that assertion. I often use Wikipedia to look up terms that a client asks me about that I have never heard before, if only so that I can get someone more informed to contact them. For work use I find it invaluable.
I'm justing wondering what those people who want to game the system by acting suspiciously will do to game the system when it is designed to detect crime...
That's nice. And I'll let you in on something. Dinh and Ashcroft were the ones who drafted the ATA, with a number of other senators. Then the DoJ drafted PATRIOT II, with the help of Ashcroft and Dinh. Gonzalez has also advised the government on legislation.
Just so you are also aware, but at the time the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, Ashcroft was a Senator who was pushing the bill.
Alternatively, it appears, you choose Novell's distro because "it seems to make sense to pick the Linux that works with Windows". Good to see CIOs are making rational business decisions.
Yes, it is a very Orwellian name. But then, how to explain the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act which was introduced, sent to Committee, and then never saw the light of day?
Slashdot Mirror
Without seeing your edit history, it's a bit hard to comment. However, did you source the material you added? If you don't, it probably will get removed or modified.
Actually, the answer is slightly more complex than that. A year ago, I would have left to Wikipedia's defense, and I would have been right to do so. However, while there are a lot of things to write about, people aren't really doing this. What would really be interesting would be the amount of edits to the Wikipedia namespace, as opposed to the main article namespace. It's the internal conflicts, navel-gazing and meta editing that is killing Wikipedia.
Sorry about that.
I'm interested to know if Peter Jackson will elect to star in the lead role of Bilbo.
Sigh. I work with technology. I needed to know what BPEL meant. I looked up Wikipedia. It explained the general topic, and it linked me to a reasonable article from Oracle on the topic. I then determined what was being asked, forwarded to the developer who can answer this question, who then gave a more in-depth answer to the client.
Incompetence? Hardly. Client was happy, we were happy. Thank you Wikipedia! No thanks to faulty logic or inaccurate assumptions by anonymous slashdot editors.
From your emotive language, I see that I've upset you in some way. Not sure why, as my original post was only three short sentences. You might want to work on your anger management. To be honest, I don't really care if you assumed wrongly, I don't know you, and you don't know me. Your response doesn't affect my life, and it never will. All I merely did was note that the assumptions weren't accurate.
I note that you are making comments about whether I am competent about my job, yet you still don't know what I do. If my office blocks Wikipedia, oh well. I was only making the point that I found it quite useful for work, and in fact I gave you an example as to how I used the encyclopedia to direct a query quickly and efficiently, which the client was very pleased about. However, as you have pointed out, there are other sources, though probably not as accessible.
Actually, that page reads:
"A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".
In context, your quote looks fine. Out of context, it looks dodgy.
As for Wales original intentions, don't know about that. I do know that he said the following:
"For God sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia."
Pretty good advise if you ask me.
I meant to reply to #20886641, not the parent comment. Sorry for any confusion.
Your manuscript/date of birth comments don't really make much sense. Like you say, if there is a dispute about the date of birth, just say that it's not really known when the subject was born and explain the issue why that is. That's hardly OR, and it's normally a reasonable thing to describe in an article.
Incidently, to use your example, if you said that they were born on 1282 and cited the encyclopedia, it would make your citation wrong (or at the least, misleading). Therefore, you should be marked down.
Yet another two points to be making:
:-) My interest in Wikipedia doesn't invalidate my comments. Try reading my comments from the perspective of one who doesn't like or need Wikipedia. Unless you can point out where I'm factually wrong, I don't see the problem.
1. What on earth are you talking about? I think you'll find that citing an encyclopedia in acadamic research or papers will get you marked down. Try it some day. It's not the purpose of an encyclopedia.
2. What rule are you talking about? See WP:DEADLINE. Directly refutes what you have just noted.
As for COI, nice try, but no cigar.
Two things to note in response:
1. Try reading the verifiability policy before posting this sort of rubbish. Nowhere does it say that the verifiability of a particular topic can be satisfied by "sufficient Google hits indicate belief in Greek gods". If you can find reliable sources (e.g. the EB, or perhaps an encyclopaedia of mythology) then that will be more than enough. There seems to be confusion here between the "Google test" for notability of websites and other topics that can be referenced from other sources.
2. Don't cite Wikipedia in academic research. I'm not sure how many times we have to say it! We have never said that Wikipedia should be used as a final source in a paper. We say: treat it like any other encyclopaedia and double-check it's facts.
Blissy, wouldn't your comment be astro-turfing for Wikipedia Review? However, despite the fact that you accuse me of astroturfing, it doesn't actually make my comments any less pertinent. At least I had the courage to post under my nom de pleum.
Not sure how to respond to your concerns, as they are just vague hand-waving, with no specific evidence to back up your arguments.
Uh, no. I doubt I've ever seen someone misunderstand the original research policy so blatantly. That policy is to prevent material being introduced that has no source. The verifiability policy says that sources must be accurate, reliable and verifiable. Precisely the opposite of the scenario you present.
Again, you assume wrongly, as I'm not offended. Seems to be a bit of a pattern forming. It's probably best not to assume you know something based on very little information. The problem as I see it is not with what I wrote, but with the way you are reading the information set forth in a fairly brief comment.
But, no, not really. I didn't need the sort of in-depth information required from a domain specific publication. All I needed was a basic understanding of what was being asked for, then I sent it to someone who had domain specific knowledge. The client didn't need me to answer their question, they just needed me to get someone who understood what was required. Wikipedia was more than adequate, and as I said we satisfied the client's needs very quickly and efficiently.
You don't need to look up specialist knowledge sources every time a technical question is asked. Granted, often you will, but as you can see in this case, Wikipedia was more than adequate. I agree that if I had needed to provide an in-depth answer then I would have looked up a better source, you'll get no argument from me about this. But for a quick overview of a particular topic, Wikipedia really can't be beat.
Interestingly, you assume wrongly. Perhaps rereading what I wrote might be nice? I deal with highly technical issues, but every now and again a client sends us a curveball. For instance, I was once asked if our product supported BPEL. I had no idea what that actually was, but a short look at Wikipedia helped point me in the right direction. I got the appropriate developer to answer the question.
Client, a fairly major bank, was actually very happy. They got the appropriate person quickly and with a minimum of fuss.
Two things: it costs money to issue patents, and secondly the patent office will totally collapse if they do that. Which might not be a bad thing, as it may mean that patents don't get passed in time, and it might force governments to reexamine the entire patent industry.
I should note that evolving new drugs from existing patents is already being done in medicine.
I disagree with that assertion. I often use Wikipedia to look up terms that a client asks me about that I have never heard before, if only so that I can get someone more informed to contact them. For work use I find it invaluable.
He's convincing to server obsessed performance mavens. Desktop users don't get a look in.
I'm justing wondering what those people who want to game the system by acting suspiciously will do to game the system when it is designed to detect crime...
That's nice. And I'll let you in on something. Dinh and Ashcroft were the ones who drafted the ATA, with a number of other senators. Then the DoJ drafted PATRIOT II, with the help of Ashcroft and Dinh. Gonzalez has also advised the government on legislation.
Just so you are also aware, but at the time the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, Ashcroft was a Senator who was pushing the bill.
Have a nice day.
Yup, like I say, informed debate.
Yes, but what if what someone wants is to steal your property?
Given the track record of open Wikis to trend towards vandalism, I'm interested in what policies they are going to put into place to stop stupidity.
Ah yes, informed opinion about delayed notification of search warrants. Don't you just love it?
Alternatively, it appears, you choose Novell's distro because "it seems to make sense to pick the Linux that works with Windows". Good to see CIOs are making rational business decisions.
Yes, it is a very Orwellian name. But then, how to explain the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act which was introduced, sent to Committee, and then never saw the light of day?