Beeblebrox doesn't see the point

Free concise encyclopedia with mobile-friendly articles. A kinder, gentler wiki, with a friendly community.
Post Reply
Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Beeblebrox doesn't see the point

Post by Renée Bagslint » Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:16 am

At his new home-from-home on a former critical site, administrator and former arbitrator Beeblebrox comments on Encyc:
Beeblebrox wrote:Between that and the clear statement on the main page that nothing is checked for accuracy I don’t see why anyone would take this seriously as a resource or find it remotely useful.
On the main page of Wikipedia we see a link to a disclaimer: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia wrote:nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required
One wonders why, er, anyone would take this seriously as a resource.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Beeblebrox doesn't see the point

Post by Auggie » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:36 pm

haha that's funny. He must never have read the Wikipedia disclaimer. An administrator of Wikipedia, thinking that Wikipedia has been checked for accuracy.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:10 pm

Re: Beeblebrox doesn't see the point

Post by Dysklyver » Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:01 pm

Yup. He has no idea about anything outside his realm, which is judging what a reliable source is for Wikipedia. No doubt he took one look at the site, said "that's not peer reviewed" and totally missed the point of the project.

I don't think many Wikipedians can overview Wikipedia's own reliability, so I don't really blame him for having never read the disclaimer.
Also on other forums. Also on wikipediocracy. I live at www.wiki.org.uk

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: Beeblebrox doesn't see the point

Post by The Joy » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:29 am

When I studied library science, we learned that you have to evaluate ANY source of information. Here's a traditional method of evaluating online information:

https://libguides.colostate.edu/howtodo/evaluatewebpage

Wikipedia, though, makes it difficult if not impossible to evaluate since it's done by multiple authors with most being anonymous. The information might be correct, but you have to do a lot more research to confirm the information. You also have to evaluate the citations and make sure THAT information is correct. Having a bias, be it liberal, conservative, moderate, etc., does not necessarily mean the author is wrong or right. You just need to be aware of it and understand how the author is interpreting the information. That's what makes the whole NPOV concept infuriating. Everyone has a bias.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Beeblebrox doesn't see the point

Post by Auggie » Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:40 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:01 pm
Yup. He has no idea about anything outside his realm, which is judging what a reliable source is for Wikipedia. No doubt he took one look at the site, said "that's not peer reviewed" and totally missed the point of the project.

I don't think many Wikipedians can overview Wikipedia's own reliability, so I don't really blame him for having never read the disclaimer.
For the most part, they're ignorant people who spend more time diddling around on the web than they do reading books. They're very good at gaming Wikipedia, but little else.
The Joy wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:29 am
When I studied library science, we learned that you have to evaluate ANY source of information. Here's a traditional method of evaluating online information:

https://libguides.colostate.edu/howtodo/evaluatewebpage

Wikipedia, though, makes it difficult if not impossible to evaluate since it's done by multiple authors with most being anonymous. The information might be correct, but you have to do a lot more research to confirm the information. You also have to evaluate the citations and make sure THAT information is correct. Having a bias, be it liberal, conservative, moderate, etc., does not necessarily mean the author is wrong or right. You just need to be aware of it and understand how the author is interpreting the information. That's what makes the whole NPOV concept infuriating. Everyone has a bias.
That link is great! In three languages, no less.

And I agree that NPOV is a load of bull, especially in light of the openly stated political and social objectives of the WMF.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests