dagblog - Comments for "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia"

Wikipedia is just soooo

Donal — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:31:35 +0000

In reply to I was thinking of posting

Wikipedia is just soooo convenient ... like the 7-Eleven of facts.

Day of the Jackal is one hell

Donal — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:30:06 +0000

In reply to I have problems with wiki but

Day of the Jackal is one hell of a good book, too.

Good cautionary tale. Thanks

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:30:03 +0000

In reply to The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

Good cautionary tale. Thanks for linking.

I have problems with wiki but

Richard Day — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:28:18 +0000

In reply to The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

I have problems with wiki but I could not live without wiki.

How does one spell broccoli?

When was Wilson born?

I get so much from that encyclopedia. I mean Encyclopedia Britannica (which I had to look up to spell it correctly) published many lies but there were so many truths.

The problem with encyclopedias is that history is not wrought in stone. I will underline the problems involved in deciphering Hammurabi's stele for chrissakes.

Wiki is beautiful in that a no-nothing critic might change the wording of an item here and there. I have never figured out exactly how to do this; but...

I just finished reading a review of a movie.

The Day of the Jackal is probably one of the best movies ever made. I was elated to see it again just yesterday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Jackal_%28film%29

And the Jackal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jackal_%281997_film%29

of 1997 was superb.

I do not need to read the essays of others with regard to this film.

But, the wiki assay of the 1997 film flippantly says that it had nothing to do with the 1971 film.

That is just bullshite.

I can go scene by scene with the 1997 film and demonstrate that it could not have been made without the original.

Did I do anything about it?

Encyclopedias are what we have as a result of the works of Descartes and others.

They give us a starting point.

We can never be sure of when Caesar was born!

We get some decent estimations of that event.

So you have spent time researching an 'event'. I wrote sometime ago that I am not sure what an 'event' actually means.

But you have spent more time on a certain subject.

GIVE EM HELL!

I have no idea what this comment means and if someone attempts to use it in order to make fun of me...they are liars. hahahaahah

Ask Newt.

I was thinking of posting

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:21:41 +0000

In reply to The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

I was thinking of posting this when I ran across it a couple days ago (not the least of which I think Genghis should read it, given his recent historical interests.) It made me realize I've been lax about trusting Wikipedia entries lately and I should be more skeptical. Of course, the author's complaint could be applied to old print world encyclopedia's, too,as they always erred on the side of conventional wisdom and didn't include new research.

There's one thing he's complaining about, though, that is wikipedia specific--they have a prejudice towards information available on the net for citations. Well, the net wasn't always there, people, and everything has not been scanned; if you want real history, you still have to go to paper. If you can't figure out who to trust for transcriptions from paper records, then add a qualification, don't just leave such info out entirely; that would be like erasing history, not helping get history right.