3 ms·

The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? I would trust Schwartz's opinions on Peruvian copper mining, quantum

by bugsy 15y ago

The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? I would trust Schwartz's opinions on Peruvian copper mining, quantum physics, square dancing, or any other subject long before I would trust any article on wikipedia because Schwartz has more credibility.

carussell 15y ago
> The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? Who's saying you should? And what's different about "these days" versus, I don't know, 2005? Feel free to substitute there your favorite year from any point on the timeline of Wikipedia nostalgia. Edit: Goddamn. I really hate to do it, but challenges, please? The notion that you can/should/could ever trust Wikipedia is some weird inference that has been tacked on by uninvolved bystanders following Wikipedia's success, and does not originate from within Wikipedia. Wikipedia's stance on the reputability of itself and other tertiary sources is as well documented as the limitations of liability in GNU software.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- pbreit 15y ago
  If I understand it correctly (I think Wikipedia is trustworthy therefore I am stupid), I believe this is a fairly minority opinion.
  - carussell 15y ago
    What?
    - pbreit 15y ago
      I think the vast majority of internet and wikipedia users find it to be a credible source.
      - carussell 15y ago
        Let's be clear. We are talking about whether one should "take wikipedia serious as a source" (emphasis mine). You invoke "source", too, but I'm unsure if your focus is on how reliably accurate Wikipedia is, or if you really do mean to say what you say. Even assuming yours is the saner of the two--that your "trustworthy" and "credible" mean to say that Wikipedia is reliably accurate--well, I'll first note that this was not the topic at hand. Since you've appealed to common opinion twice, can I presume that your own use of Wikipedia is also a typically casual one? That is, that you rarely if ever make a point to verify the claims made in articles by: i) Cross-checking the cited sources, and/or ii) Independently verifying things in some other way If I'm permitted to make that presumption, then for my second point I'll note that unless you've done these things, the statement that Wikipedia is "trustworthy" and "credible" is a vacuous one. I'll also note that I deliberately made a point of saying who's holding this opinion when I wrote that it's a "weird inference that has been tacked on by uninvolved bystanders following Wikipedia's success, and does not originate from within Wikipedia". There is, I think, a fairly realistic view of Wikipedia within the Wikipedia community, especially from those who were involved early. The "vast majority of the internet and wikipedia users" are not Wikipedia editors. -- To revisit the point I made in the edit to my initial reply to bugsy, I'll say that there's a reason every page on Wikipedia links to a page that says the following,[1] the formatting of which I can neither accurately reproduce nor adequately convey here: > WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY > [...] > That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. (emphasized in the original) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
fallous 15y ago
Can you tell the history of the Internet without mentioning Schwartz? I'm dubious if you answer "no" and so he should be included for that if nothing else.
- RandalSchwartz 15y ago
  As in, how would you explain the growth of the interactive web from 1994 to 1997, without including Perl, and therefore, without including my books that taught most of those guys how to code in Perl? Very good point.
- bugsy 15y ago
  Well yes, this is my point. It's not clear to me why it's being massively downvoted. Randal is real, credible, and a valuable and well known contributor to culture and citizen of our early 21st century era. It is odd that Wikipedia is voting whether he is generally of no account or value worth mentioning. It would make more sense for Randal to vote on whether Wikipedia is of value and worth mentioning, or should be deleted instead. No doubt Wikipedia is notable, but mostly in the sense it is notorious.

by bugsy 15y ago

carussell 15y ago

> The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? Who's saying you should? And what's different about "these days" versus, I don't know, 2005? Feel free to substitute there your favorite year from any point on the timeline of Wikipedia nostalgia. Edit: Goddamn. I really hate to do it, but challenges, please? The notion that you can/should/could ever trust Wikipedia is some weird inference that has been tacked on by uninvolved bystanders following Wikipedia's success, and does not originate from within Wikipedia. Wikipedia's stance on the reputability of itself and other tertiary sources is as well documented as the limitations of liability in GNU software.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
pbreit 15y ago
If I understand it correctly (I think Wikipedia is trustworthy therefore I am stupid), I believe this is a fairly minority opinion.
- carussell 15y ago
  What?
  - pbreit 15y ago
    I think the vast majority of internet and wikipedia users find it to be a credible source.
    - carussell 15y ago
      Let's be clear. We are talking about whether one should "take wikipedia serious as a source" (emphasis mine). You invoke "source", too, but I'm unsure if your focus is on how reliably accurate Wikipedia is, or if you really do mean to say what you say. Even assuming yours is the saner of the two--that your "trustworthy" and "credible" mean to say that Wikipedia is reliably accurate--well, I'll first note that this was not the topic at hand. Since you've appealed to common opinion twice, can I presume that your own use of Wikipedia is also a typically casual one? That is, that you rarely if ever make a point to verify the claims made in articles by: i) Cross-checking the cited sources, and/or ii) Independently verifying things in some other way If I'm permitted to make that presumption, then for my second point I'll note that unless you've done these things, the statement that Wikipedia is "trustworthy" and "credible" is a vacuous one. I'll also note that I deliberately made a point of saying who's holding this opinion when I wrote that it's a "weird inference that has been tacked on by uninvolved bystanders following Wikipedia's success, and does not originate from within Wikipedia". There is, I think, a fairly realistic view of Wikipedia within the Wikipedia community, especially from those who were involved early. The "vast majority of the internet and wikipedia users" are not Wikipedia editors. -- To revisit the point I made in the edit to my initial reply to bugsy, I'll say that there's a reason every page on Wikipedia links to a page that says the following,[1] the formatting of which I can neither accurately reproduce nor adequately convey here: > WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY > [...] > That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. (emphasized in the original) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

fallous 15y ago

Can you tell the history of the Internet without mentioning Schwartz? I'm dubious if you answer "no" and so he should be included for that if nothing else.

RandalSchwartz 15y ago
As in, how would you explain the growth of the interactive web from 1994 to 1997, without including Perl, and therefore, without including my books that taught most of those guys how to code in Perl? Very good point.
bugsy 15y ago
Well yes, this is my point. It's not clear to me why it's being massively downvoted. Randal is real, credible, and a valuable and well known contributor to culture and citizen of our early 21st century era. It is odd that Wikipedia is voting whether he is generally of no account or value worth mentioning. It would make more sense for Randal to vote on whether Wikipedia is of value and worth mentioning, or should be deleted instead. No doubt Wikipedia is notable, but mostly in the sense it is notorious.