The folks at PBS haven't spent large blocks of their lives distributing pornography. For the most part, they didn't spend their lives speculating on the value of commodiites -- they have demonstrated sustained interest in the subject matter they report, or in the honest accurate representation of diverse subjects to diverse audiences. The editorial processes at PBS involve interaction who have spent years studying the impacts and nuance of mass communication.
Cable networks don't control content on PBS or presume to have absolute veto power over any controversy that arises in PBS. Jim Wales does claim complete control over any aspect of Wikipedia that he decides to interfere with.
This comment reflects the grandiose self-image that permeates Wikipedia. It's almost as if the Internet or encyclopedias didn't exist before a Florida Internet magnate invented them. If we looked through Wikipedia for cited sources to the "reputable publications" that ostensibly underpin all facts in the work, we might reach the conclusion that indeed Wikipedia is original.
What if ordinary people already recognize publication bias, but their tolerance for bias were exagerated by a source that permanently excuses bias? What if the pilot on your next flight decided to follow free, albeit unreliable map to the destination airport?
It's about due dilligence. What are the professional backgrounds of the non-fiction authors you trust? Do they have experience in subjects that require strict compliance with standards? Or is their access to publishing tools a result of catering to prurient desires? Would you hire Hugh Hefner to tutor your teen in sociology? Would Larry Flynt serve well as a high-school principal?
Here's a glass of 80 percent water and 20 percent strychnine. If you let the strychnine settle and sip carefully, you might get a thirst-quenching drink.
Is this what has become of knowledge? Do we now prefer may-be-true over I-don't-know?
Wikipedia was an interesting phenomenon for the early 2000's when networking had finally reached a critical mass and the price of mass data storage was falling to within reach of the average person. Now it's time to grow up, to recognize that integrity of information is important, and that open discussion of topics among anonymous editors doesn't always result in a continually improved product. In some cases, it results in a poor product that can supplant something more useful and more accurate.
People visit Wikipedia because of search engine results. Search engine placement is a result of crosslinking. Cross linking and pages titled under a wide variety of subjects was acheived by forking outdated encyclopedias, census data and public atlases. Creation of this presence was facilitated by free server space and a full time employee. Server space and employee wages were subsidized by money produced distributing soft porn.
For a grown-up alternative to Wickedpedia, check out Digital Universe. http://www.digitaluniverse.net/
The ratio of valid criticism in other venues is not much higher than the ratio of valid content within Wickedpedia.
The reason Wikipedia is the leading free encylopedia is because somebody subsidized it with income from his soft-port business. It was built around republications of old encylopedias and automated reproduction of free atlases. To see where the majority of Wikipedia's geographic data came from check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rambot . Other content was contributed by undergrads paraphrasing class materials.
What hasn't been forked or plagiarized is unreliable, though content forked from other sources creates an impression of credibility. Articles involving social topics are notoriously biased. Other topics are edited by paid advocates -- including corporate hacks and military personnel -- as a means of having their preferred view of the world reproduced on the hundreds of sites that fork Wikipedia content without questioning its merit.
The arbitration processes at Wikipedia have nothing to do with qualifying content and everything to do with making sure people are "good Wikipedians." The much acclaimed "NPOV" (neutral point of view) is little more than a slogan tossed around by insiders as an alternative to reasoned discussion of content around well defined and consistently enforced editorial policies.
Slashdot Mirror
The folks at PBS haven't spent large blocks of their lives distributing pornography. For the most part, they didn't spend their lives speculating on the value of commodiites -- they have demonstrated sustained interest in the subject matter they report, or in the honest accurate representation of diverse subjects to diverse audiences. The editorial processes at PBS involve interaction who have spent years studying the impacts and nuance of mass communication. Cable networks don't control content on PBS or presume to have absolute veto power over any controversy that arises in PBS. Jim Wales does claim complete control over any aspect of Wikipedia that he decides to interfere with.
Wikipedia is a breaching exercise intended to make people skeptical of published information?
This comment reflects the grandiose self-image that permeates Wikipedia. It's almost as if the Internet or encyclopedias didn't exist before a Florida Internet magnate invented them. If we looked through Wikipedia for cited sources to the "reputable publications" that ostensibly underpin all facts in the work, we might reach the conclusion that indeed Wikipedia is original. What if ordinary people already recognize publication bias, but their tolerance for bias were exagerated by a source that permanently excuses bias? What if the pilot on your next flight decided to follow free, albeit unreliable map to the destination airport?
It's about due dilligence. What are the professional backgrounds of the non-fiction authors you trust? Do they have experience in subjects that require strict compliance with standards? Or is their access to publishing tools a result of catering to prurient desires? Would you hire Hugh Hefner to tutor your teen in sociology? Would Larry Flynt serve well as a high-school principal?
Here's a glass of 80 percent water and 20 percent strychnine. If you let the strychnine settle and sip carefully, you might get a thirst-quenching drink. Is this what has become of knowledge? Do we now prefer may-be-true over I-don't-know? Wikipedia was an interesting phenomenon for the early 2000's when networking had finally reached a critical mass and the price of mass data storage was falling to within reach of the average person. Now it's time to grow up, to recognize that integrity of information is important, and that open discussion of topics among anonymous editors doesn't always result in a continually improved product. In some cases, it results in a poor product that can supplant something more useful and more accurate.
People visit Wikipedia because of search engine results. Search engine placement is a result of crosslinking. Cross linking and pages titled under a wide variety of subjects was acheived by forking outdated encyclopedias, census data and public atlases. Creation of this presence was facilitated by free server space and a full time employee. Server space and employee wages were subsidized by money produced distributing soft porn.
For a grown-up alternative to Wickedpedia, check out Digital Universe. http://www.digitaluniverse.net/ The ratio of valid criticism in other venues is not much higher than the ratio of valid content within Wickedpedia.
The reason Wikipedia is the leading free encylopedia is because somebody subsidized it with income from his soft-port business. It was built around republications of old encylopedias and automated reproduction of free atlases. To see where the majority of Wikipedia's geographic data came from check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rambot . Other content was contributed by undergrads paraphrasing class materials. What hasn't been forked or plagiarized is unreliable, though content forked from other sources creates an impression of credibility. Articles involving social topics are notoriously biased. Other topics are edited by paid advocates -- including corporate hacks and military personnel -- as a means of having their preferred view of the world reproduced on the hundreds of sites that fork Wikipedia content without questioning its merit. The arbitration processes at Wikipedia have nothing to do with qualifying content and everything to do with making sure people are "good Wikipedians." The much acclaimed "NPOV" (neutral point of view) is little more than a slogan tossed around by insiders as an alternative to reasoned discussion of content around well defined and consistently enforced editorial policies.