I was more appalled at the mean spirited comment that Hawking was bitter that God hadn't taken away his "affliction" and should be studying God's word more, instead of all that science junk.
I couldn't even think of a coherent response to that one. Its incredibly offensive - and not only to aetheists but to those whose view of a deity is a more sohpisticated than Santa Claus.
A really poorly done study, yes. It was, if I remember correctly in Nature Magazine. In some cases they compared the full wikipedia article to the summaries of traditional sources which is just a tad biased. Or they did not compare the same types of sources. This was in an issue touting the superiority of the 'hive mind' of wikis(separate from their study). Color me unimpressed with the methodology used in the study. Garbage in, gospel out.
Wikipedia isn't terrible - you can't beat it for pop culture. Its technology articles are also very good. But some items, particularly corporate profiles and biographies are suspect.
Independent studies show that numerous times someone has gone in and changed something in a wikipedia article to suit their own political/personal agenda.
My personal favorites are corporations changing entries - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293389,00.html and founder Jimbo Wales editing his girlfriends entries on wikip. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03/jimbo_wales_rachel_marsden/
For anything scholarly, Wikipedia should never be your only source (but then again no one reference work should ever be your only source of information).
We spend a lot on memorization and spit back for tests, but almost nothing on critical analysis. Add in the whole fundamentalist view of 'thou shalt not question'and 'cause the bible says so' and you have the perfect recipe for a nation of sheep.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 07:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 08:06 pm (UTC)(Bonus points for Wikipedia becoming the 'respected source' here).
no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-04 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-01 06:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-01 07:44 am (UTC)Wikipedia isn't terrible - you can't beat it for pop culture. Its technology articles are also very good. But some items, particularly corporate profiles and biographies are suspect.
Independent studies show that numerous times someone has gone in and changed something in a wikipedia article to suit their own political/personal agenda.
My personal favorites are corporations changing entries - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293389,00.html and
founder Jimbo Wales editing his girlfriends entries on wikip. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03/jimbo_wales_rachel_marsden/
For anything scholarly, Wikipedia should never be your only source (but then again no one reference work should ever be your only source of information).
no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-31 02:50 am (UTC)MEEEEEEEEEE TO!
Too many Es, not enough Os, can't spell two- and three-letter words. Please tell me this person isn't the pilot of a jetliner I'll be taking some day.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-31 10:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-04 12:39 am (UTC)