lists at l8r.net
Tue Apr 3 22:11:00 EDT 2007
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:10:33 -0400
"Piotr R. Sidorowicz" <prsidoro at mavericsolutions.ca> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Brad Barnett wrote:
> > Regardless, the issue at hand is that you are claiming to debate one
> > topic, yet doing everything but debating the same.
> On topic:
> No published information (on the internet or otherwise) should be taken
> as an absolute gospel. It is entirely up to the reader to accept, reject
> or critique the content or to use it as a step in further research of a
> given topic. Wikipedia is no different in that regard. Caveat emptor.
We have not been discussing, however, whether information of any sort
should be taken as gospel. Realistically, every bit of sensory input
should be accepted only with a respectable level of scepticism.
What we _are_ discussing, however, is how reliably the Wikipedia is, in
comparison to a standard encyclopedia or other reference material. It is
the fashion by which Wikipedia's articles are created, and the level of
editorial control that is the concern.
My direct, precise statements as to what I find disconcerting can be found
in other messages of this thread.
> Off topic:
> I sense bit of a deja vu here. It seems that Brad is on a self-righteous
> rampage again (it appears to be a seasonal occurrence); so gentlemen
> please indulge him for as long as you find watching him froth at the bit
This entire thread started when I responded to the outrageous assertion
that the Wikipedia is trustworthy. My points and reasons were loosely
worded, but clear enough. However, it is not I that have been frothing at
the mouth, but a multitude of other individuals that seem to feel I have
personally insulted them by even daring to question the Wikipedia.
I sense a strong emotional bias, here. After all, in terms of trust and
reliability, the young age of the Wikipedia alone is enough to raise
The instant acceptance of the Wikipedia is based not upon logic, but
upon emotional attachment. It employs open source ideals, therefore it
must be trustworthy. It employs new concepts and new ideas, therefore
it must be good. It is trendy, and hip to accept the Wikipedia.
You haven't heard of the Wikipedia? What are you, some sort of
One cen see the same sort of group logic, when one looks at how the public
at large suddened accepted global warming en mass, because of one warm
Christmas. The Conservative government's sudden switch to an
environmental platform clearly displays how instantaneously the public at
large changed their mind. Science, logic and other forms of reason were
meaningless, until people had strange weather smacking them on their
Of course, the amusing part is that this warm winter did absolutely
nothing to prove or disprove the theories associated with global warming.
Much like the believe in the Wikipedia, however, it is a very emotional
and hip sort of thing.
I do still welcome debate upon the specific points I have raised, about
> Best regards to all.
More information about the OCLUG