It seems to me that the most important measure of quality sould be overall factual accuracy (logical quality). I find it fascinating that the complaints about quality by Carr don't really make any serious claims against the site's factual accuracy. Formatting and contextual issues such as spelling are quality issues but not nearly as important to useability as logical quality.
I do use Wikipedia regularly but could care less if Wikis replace encyclopedias or not.
Does anyone know of a serious statistical survery of the factual accuracy of articles in Wikipedia?
What % of articles are "garbage", and what % are legitimate starting points of reference (what % have an acceptable logical quality)?
The articles "randomly" selected by Nicholas Carr are telling: how many people's primary use of Britannica consists of celebrity bios (e.g. Gates, Fonda)? His "dazzeling post" hints that he sees the "amateur" nature of the project as the real problem. Not suprising, since trust seems to correlate with social status in the minds of business-folk.
What makes traditional encyclopedias "Objective"? How is NPOV related to objectivity?
"small percentage of good entries" -- what % of the entries in Wikipedia are good?
I've yet to see any meaningful debate on the logical quality of the project. Somebody should compare topics side by side with Britannica and note the differences.
I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, but that's NOT what we're currently doing. (I think) we ARE dominating the world by force. There is a difference between defending ourselves and having over 700 military bases in 130 different countries. We spend billions on national defense and people STILL don't feel secure. Furthermore, I believe that most if not all of our defense is used to protect "our" interests, rather than the common fate of individual citizens.
>Responsibility and fault are things we argue about when we live in a secure world
Granted its a helluva lot easier when we are more secure, but people in Colombia, Haiti and other insecure locations have debates all the time as well.
It's like you say, "there are a limited supply of resources and we compete for them", however I think we should distinguish between natural resources and other resources. The incredible human mind can think up endless service-based resources (for example: musicians, teachers, writers, poets, actors,etc.), but there is only X gallons of oil on earth.
I am a firm believer that "there are only X number of jobs to go around" is a product of our existing economic system, and does not have to be true. Jobs CAN be created without tying them to the use of our limited natural resources. The problem comes when EVERYONE wants to be rich with endless amounts of property and natural resources, and there is no personal individual responsibility in sight. We're taught that it doesn't matter how much material or natural resources we consume as an individual or group, and THAT is where our downfall lies. I brought up the example of the Semai because I think they can help to teach us how to curb our endless hunger and competition for natural resources.
What do you think?:)
Take care,
gstejska
"Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."
St. Augustine
The City of God, Book IV, Chapter 4
Of course. I don't understand your point, however. Are you saying that we should base our society on domination by force of any one who gets in our way? The Semai are responsible for their loss because they didn't "develop"? I thought that the fault lies with the external influence.
Are you saying that a strong culture that dominates others is by default a better model for ours?
Are African cultures to blame for slavery because they didn't "adapt" to it?
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that the most important measure of quality sould be overall factual accuracy (logical quality). I find it fascinating that the complaints about quality by Carr don't really make any serious claims against the site's factual accuracy. Formatting and contextual issues such as spelling are quality issues but not nearly as important to useability as logical quality.
I do use Wikipedia regularly but could care less if Wikis replace encyclopedias or not.
Does anyone know of a serious statistical survery of the factual accuracy of articles in Wikipedia?
What % of articles are "garbage", and what % are legitimate starting points of reference (what % have an acceptable logical quality)?
The articles "randomly" selected by Nicholas Carr are telling: how many people's primary use of Britannica consists of celebrity bios (e.g. Gates, Fonda)? His "dazzeling post" hints that he sees the "amateur" nature of the project as the real problem. Not suprising, since trust seems to correlate with social status in the minds of business-folk.
What makes traditional encyclopedias "Objective"? How is NPOV related to objectivity?
"small percentage of good entries" -- what % of the entries in Wikipedia are good?
I've yet to see any meaningful debate on the logical quality of the project. Somebody should compare topics side by side with Britannica and note the differences.
g
I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, but that's NOT what we're currently doing. (I think) we ARE dominating the world by force. There is a difference between defending ourselves and having over 700 military bases in 130 different countries. We spend billions on national defense and people STILL don't feel secure. Furthermore, I believe that most if not all of our defense is used to protect "our" interests, rather than the common fate of individual citizens.
>Responsibility and fault are things we argue about when we live in a secure world
Granted its a helluva lot easier when we are more secure, but people in Colombia, Haiti and other insecure locations have debates all the time as well.
It's like you say, "there are a limited supply of resources and we compete for them", however I think we should distinguish between natural resources and other resources. The incredible human mind can think up endless service-based resources (for example: musicians, teachers, writers, poets, actors,etc.), but there is only X gallons of oil on earth.
I am a firm believer that "there are only X number of jobs to go around" is a product of our existing economic system, and does not have to be true. Jobs CAN be created without tying them to the use of our limited natural resources. The problem comes when EVERYONE wants to be rich with endless amounts of property and natural resources, and there is no personal individual responsibility in sight. We're taught that it doesn't matter how much material or natural resources we consume as an individual or group, and THAT is where our downfall lies. I brought up the example of the Semai because I think they can help to teach us how to curb our endless hunger and competition for natural resources.
What do you think? :)
Take care,
gstejska
"Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." St. Augustine
The City of God, Book IV, Chapter 4
Of course. I don't understand your point, however. Are you saying that we should base our society on domination by force of any one who gets in our way? The Semai are responsible for their loss because they didn't "develop"? I thought that the fault lies with the external influence. Are you saying that a strong culture that dominates others is by default a better model for ours? Are African cultures to blame for slavery because they didn't "adapt" to it? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here.
The Semai (among others)