| Author |
|
Tom Melly
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: 20 September 2005 at 9:14am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"Satisfactory perhaps, complete not"
Heh - okay, it would be satisfactory and complete if all that it was intended to be a bibliographical entry....
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 20 September 2005 at 9:58am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
To use other Wiki entries of comic book pros as a reference point for
JB's article is something Wikipedia themselves don't care for. I have
asked them to compare JB's article with Jack Kirby's or Will Eisner.
Those articles are not bursting with minutae and rumors yet succeed in
getting the point across of the importance of those artists. "There are
no arbitrary limits" is their response.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: 20 September 2005 at 5:32pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
The entitlement to an opinion is not equivalent to an epistemic
entitlement to that opinion being true. If Wikipedia is the repository of
mere opinion, it has no entitlement to claim its entries as truthful. What
kind of encyclopaedia is that? It isn't one; it's a rumour mill, and it ought
to be treated as such.
Students who hand me university English essays containing references to
Wikipedia entries receive severe lessons in the necessity of sound
research methodology.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 20 September 2005 at 7:32pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
And therein lies the very heart of the problem. Wikipedia presents itself as an "encyclopedia" and, unlike the real encyclopedias that can be found online -- Britannica, for instance -- is free. So that's increasingly where people go -- if it's free, they are not going to worry themselves overmuch about whether it's accurate. They are getting what they pay for.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 3:24am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I think that Wikipedia is merely a symptom of the more serious problem
of increasing epistemic relativism in the West whereby one's political/
legal entitlement to expressing an opinion in free democratic socities is
habitually confused with an epistemic entitlement to be right about
everything one says. The critical thinker will always offer evidence and
sound reasoning for his opinions, and crucially will be ready to abandon
them in the light of more persuasive evidence or cogent reasoning for
their contraries.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 3:38am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
epistemology
n : the philosophical theory of knowledge
Just for those folks not as clever as me who have trouble working out what the hell Darragh is talking about sometimes....
Tom Melly wrote:
|
Personally, I like wikipedia, and, if I'm looking up info on a fairly neutral subject, I've found it as reliable as any other resource. That said, anyone who treats a resource like wikipedia as canonical is being foolish.
|
|
|
A contradiction surely. If I am looking up 'fairly neutral' material, I wouldn't bother consulting more than one source...why would I, when I am expecting facts and not controversy? So I would expect 'canonical' and not 'open to dispute'. If I am looking for critical opinion, that is a different matter, I would consult an encyclopaedia expecting the opinion of the writer of the article, but presupposing that that opinion had some kind of credibility - that I had a reason to respect the author's opinion...
Edited by Ian Evans on 21 September 2005 at 3:46am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 3:51am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Ian Evans wrote:
| A contradiction surely. If I am looking up 'fairly neutral' material, I wouldn't bother
consulting more than one source...why would I, when I am expecting
facts and not controversy? So I would expect 'canonical' and not 'open
to dispute'. |
|
|
Because you're an intelligent, critical reader, and you never base
anything on just one source, whatever pretensions it may have towards
"objectivity," because you know that every "fact" is always open to
dispute. I don't understand how otherwise intelligent people don't
always do that with every source, from bathroom gossip to the hallowed
Britannica. It's the first rule of everything.
Edited by Mike Tishman on 21 September 2005 at 3:52am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 4:06am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Distance to Moon? Need more than one source? Don't be silly
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 5:16am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Darragh Greene: I think that Wikipedia is merely a symptom of the more serious problem of increasing epistemic relativism in the West whereby one's political/ legal entitlement to expressing an opinion in free democratic socities is habitually confused with an epistemic entitlement to be right about everything one says.**** It's certainly true that one of my earliest "battles" fought on the internet was with a seeming legion of people who had gotten it into their heads that "This is my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong!" Where this nonsense came from I cannot imagine. A further warping of "Everybody is entitled to their opinion"? Or just one more example, if any be needed, of how much the educational system in this country has failed those is is supposed to have served.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Rolls
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 June 2004
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 5:37am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
<<Distance to Moon? Need more than one source? Don't be silly >>
Sure... if you could absolutely guarantee the validity of your one source. And who can?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Fulton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3938
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 5:46am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
What, John Byrne is not an expert on John Byrne?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 6:15am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
<<Distance to Moon? Need more than one source? Don't be silly >>
Sure... if you could absolutely guarantee the validity of your one source. And who can?
++++++++++++
This is starting to tick me off...who the hell has enough time in their lives to bother verifying every fact they read? You choose a text that can give you the answer and you accept it. You don't assume that the fact will be wrong unless you are reading the bloody tabloid press...finding out that the text got it wrong should be a surprise, and occasion a letter to the editor, not merely a matter of course..
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
