4 ms·

Is there really something like a "save way"? Every expressed knowledge can be wrong in the end. You can increase your level of certainty by checking the origin

by netrus 14y ago

Is there really something like a "save way"? Every expressed knowledge can be wrong in the end. You can increase your level of certainty by checking the origin of the information, reputation of source and author, or by measuring against common sense. What degree of certainty is needed for - looking up a subject you are generally interested in? A undergrad paper? A local newspaper journalist? A doctoral thesis? 90% of my Wikipedia usage falls in the category of self-education and general interest. Wikipedia is certainly a safe source for that.

jacquesm 14y ago
> Wikipedia is certainly a safe source for that. Until you want to know about India-Portugal relations.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  And this of course is the tricky bit. There is a parable about a conqueror who captured a city by throwing a handful of diseased grain into the grainary and telling the town this. The town surrendered to his siege rather than anyone eat possibly tainted grain. Of course the message is that you can sometimes destroy the value of a large asset or strength with a small act. The trick is that if anyone ate the grain it was unlikely they would get sick, but if someone did get the tainted grains they would get very very sick and possibly die. Wikipedia lives and dies by who is willing to use it as a source of information, and once that source it tainted "enough" the bit flips and nobody uses it.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    And yet regular journalism is as bad but we don't see constant hand wringing about how the NYT or WSJ is full of BS.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Perhaps we read different blogs :-) I see a lot of hand wringing at the lack to journalistic ethics and poor research which results in either misleading or worst completely inaccurate stories. Those complaints about the NY Times write who made up sympathetic characters for his story? The Wired science writer who repackaged stuff. Poor information integrity in general.
leephillips 14y ago
I was using "safe" in a relative sense. I don't disagree with anything you've said. Wikipedia is generally pretty accurate, useful, and safe for casually informing yourself about a non-controversial topic. But it's not "safe" to use in research, for example. There is a joke I heard somewhere: "If you don't believe me, just look it up on Wikipedia! But wait 15 minutes before you do."

by netrus 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

> Wikipedia is certainly a safe source for that. Until you want to know about India-Portugal relations.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
And this of course is the tricky bit. There is a parable about a conqueror who captured a city by throwing a handful of diseased grain into the grainary and telling the town this. The town surrendered to his siege rather than anyone eat possibly tainted grain. Of course the message is that you can sometimes destroy the value of a large asset or strength with a small act. The trick is that if anyone ate the grain it was unlikely they would get sick, but if someone did get the tainted grains they would get very very sick and possibly die. Wikipedia lives and dies by who is willing to use it as a source of information, and once that source it tainted "enough" the bit flips and nobody uses it.
- Evbn 14y ago
  And yet regular journalism is as bad but we don't see constant hand wringing about how the NYT or WSJ is full of BS.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Perhaps we read different blogs :-) I see a lot of hand wringing at the lack to journalistic ethics and poor research which results in either misleading or worst completely inaccurate stories. Those complaints about the NY Times write who made up sympathetic characters for his story? The Wired science writer who repackaged stuff. Poor information integrity in general.

leephillips 14y ago

I was using "safe" in a relative sense. I don't disagree with anything you've said. Wikipedia is generally pretty accurate, useful, and safe for casually informing yourself about a non-controversial topic. But it's not "safe" to use in research, for example. There is a joke I heard somewhere: "If you don't believe me, just look it up on Wikipedia! But wait 15 minutes before you do."