More Wikipedia Humiliation - New England Patriots Forums

***QuiGon*** · 03-06-2007, 05:46 PM

It'll be interesting to see the Wiki-apologists defend this little tidbit

Excerpt from ABCNews.com:

"This latest scandal involves a prominent editor who forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate ... (he) described himself on his user profile as 'a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States.' In reality, Ryan Jordan was a 24-year-old community college dropout from Kentucky who relied on sources like 'Catholicism for Dummies' when correcting articles."

And if you can't trust a 24 year old community college dropout to be a reliable reference, then who can you trust...?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2928756&page=1

Pujo · 03-06-2007, 05:51 PM

It's not relevant since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Even if you have a doctorate, you need to cite your sources like everyone else.

Wikipedia is great for what it is, which is not an encyclopedia.

mikey · 03-06-2007, 06:07 PM

I'm not sure if "humiliation" is the right word to describe this "scandal".

Being an "open-ended" source, there is, of course, always the possibility of misrepresentation and inaccurate information.

It is obvious that you cannot use Wikipedia as the primary source. You have to verify the information from a secondary source.

BTW, my high school son, who has been accepted to Stanford, is a Wikipedia editor and a contributor.

.

***PressCoverage*** · 03-06-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey

I'm not sure if "humiliation" is the right word to describe this "scandal".

Being an "open-ended" source, there is, of course, always the possibility of misrepresentation and inaccurate information.

It is obvious that you cannot use Wikipedia as the primary source. You have to verify the information from a secondary source.

BTW, my high school son, who has been accepted to Stanford, is a Wikipedia editor and a contributor.
.

Star Wars geek can't hear you... he's covered his ears from actually having to read any rebuttal to his pittiful, angry wacko righty nonsense... lol... in fact, i think he's left with bantering only with his allies...

***QuiGon*** · 03-06-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey

It is obvious that you cannot use Wikipedia as the primary source.

Oh, I agree 100%. Unfortunately what is obvious to you and me is not so obvious to others...

Pujo · 03-06-2007, 06:24 PM

It seems like people don't know what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. All encyclopedias, by definition, are secondary sources. If you want to learn about the civil war from primary sources, you have to find civil war-era documents. If you look it up in something that's dedicated to writing about the civil war, like any encyclopedia, you're consulting a secondary source.

What people mean to say is that they wouldn't use Wikipedia as their only source, and I think that's clear enough to 95% of the people who would ever bother to look something up in the first place.

Real World · 03-06-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

It seems like people don't know what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. All encyclopedias, by definition, are secondary sources. If you want to learn about the civil war from primary sources, you have to find civil war-era documents. If you look it up in something that's dedicated to writing about the civil war, like any encyclopedia, you're consulting a secondary source.

That was very well explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

What people mean to say is that they wouldn't use Wikipedia as their only source, and I think that's clear enough to 95% of the people who would ever bother to look something up in the first place.

Most people yes, but I think 95% is a tad high. Wistah said his kids teacher was telling his/her students that Wiki was gospel. (sorry for the religious overtones

)

wistahpatsfan · 03-06-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

...Most people yes, but I think 95% is a tad high. Wistah said his kids teacher was telling his/her students that Wiki was gospel. (sorry for the religious overtones

)

Something like that. I said she told the kids it was a good source for information. At second thought, I don't necessarily disagree with her since she was talking to 4th graders, but my daughter knows that there are better sources.

I'd put Wikipedia as a quaternary source, tertiary at best, not secondary.

***PressCoverage*** · 03-06-2007, 08:24 PM

is anything funnier than watching Con men posters bang cymbals over "Wikipedia Humliation" and Gore's kilowatt usage, all while COMPLETELY avoiding the Libby verdict and the US Attorneys firing stories like the plague?

distract, distract, distract... i love it... remember when you were 3 and you thought if you closed your eyes really hard and everything went dark that you actually disappeared, yourself?...

how utterly satisfying ...

***DarrylS*** · 03-07-2007, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

is anything funnier than watching Con men posters bang cymbals over "Wikipedia Humliation" and Gore's kilowatt usage, all while COMPLETELY avoiding the Libby verdict and the US Attorneys firing stories like the plague?

distract, distract, distract... i love it... remember when you were 3 and you thought if you closed your eyes really hard and everything went dark that you actually disappeared, yourself?...

how utterly satisfying ...

Strategy #3 from the Rove play book, when dealing with any facts from the left throw out anything and see if it sticks, if it does you have done your job by distracting from the real issues. Who cares about Wikpedia, it is what it is minimally a tertiary source.