Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:59:43PM +0200, Svein Halvor Halvorsen wrote: Bill Moran wrote: A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research assignment that involved that information. Apparently the number of students who trusted the false information without verifying it was quite high. I should take that as a lesson that most people _don't_ know how to verify the validity of information and be more careful when I make sarcastic statements. Lee Capps wrote: That's interesting, though, to pick a nit, it may just show that students were in a hurry, rather than that they necessarily trust the info or that they don't know _how_ to verify the info. And also: Where is this professor's ethics? Does he also misinform the students in class, only to later accuse them of not verifying the facts? And did he even think about the fact that others may have read his misinformation? Why does this professor think that his agenda is more important than Wikipedia's? Did he later correct the articles? How is it unethical? He altered information and tested his students to see if they'd verify it. Although unless it was information relating to their major I don't see why he should berate them for not checking. I'm not likely to care enough to double- or triple- check information on many many topics out there if it's something irrelevant to my line of work or my interests/hobbies. Now, if he LEFT the information vandalized, that would be unethical, since others out there may rely on the information and he knowingly left it with misleading data, since the whole idea behind the Wiki is that people with knowledge will share their knowledge and not mislead people. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Apr 25, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Wednesday, April 25, 2007 15:29:04 -0400 Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:03PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: No kidding. That professor should have his Wikipedia account banned, and the head of his department should be informed of his vandalism. I don't suppose you know the name of his Wikipedia account, or his legal name. . . . yawn. That sort of research has been going on for years. Less interesting is the sort of trash emitted by people who don't like knowing that whatever they've read on a webpage might not be completely accurate, and that they might have to do some of their own thinking. regards. At one time I had high hopes that the internet would usher in a new era of increased knowledge and reduced gullibility. Instead it seems to have simply hastened the arrival to the wrong conclusions. There are opportunities for increased knowledge. Gullibility, though, is part of our human nature. How many of you delve four levels deep when looking for a quick reference on something that, in the long run, you care little about? If you're not a mechanic or car enthusiast, do you look into anything and everything on how a clutch works, or every variation of four wheel drive implementations? Probably not. We don't devote time and resources into being renaissance people. For me, I look up the answer, if it sounds reasonable, I go with it unless someone else points out a deficiency in the answer. I need a quick and dirty answer to move on to things I *do* care about. The problem is that people will accept an answer whether it makes sense or not. We had someone once convinced that a Laser Car Wash cleaned cars by shooting small lasers at the car to clean it. It was something so far left field of what they're interested in and knowledgeable about that they just accepted the answer, even though there's no way such a system would be affordable (or safe enough) to use as a car washing tool. Then again, there are those that do this intentionally, because spreading misinformation is in their best interest and they profit from it. Even schools profit, not necessarily monetarily, by keeping students from questioning what they are taught. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On 27/04/07, Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We don't devote time and resources into being renaissance people. Human intelligence is hardly limited in that regard. While I do not subscribe to the Colin Wilson theory, the vast majority of people contain so little information it is quite shameful, and the less you learn the harder it is to learn. These arguments about ethics show how truly shallow ethicists bother to think. Wikipedia is a daycare centre which has given out a nearly unlimited number of crayons and is now complaining about children drawing on the walls. It is also a fairly plain example of the cliche of the inmates running the asylum. To assign scholarly status and impute scholarly ethics on such a nonsensical rubbish pile is as silly as taking my arguments here as more than the ranting of a deranged keyboard jockey. What that purported professor did is no more unethical than crapping in somone else's toilet, and to claim other- wise is to elevate it to a king's throne. Once wikipedia (and its ilk) begin to systematically vet contributors for expertise and seriously review articles against fact we can nail them to the wall for political bias. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:00 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Svein Halvor Halvorsen Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:00 AM To: Lee Capps Cc: Thomas Dickey; Bill Moran; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?)) Bill Moran wrote: A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research And also: Where is this professor's ethics? Does he also misinform the students in class, only to later accuse them of not verifying the facts? And did he even think about the fact that others may have read his misinformation? Why does this professor think that his agenda is more important than Wikipedia's? Did he later correct the articles? I hope this professor got some sort of reaction from his University due to his unethical attitude towards openness, knowledge and science. I'm afraid I have to agree. The Prof was as lazy as his students. The world abounds in misinformation, it doesen't take a lot of effort to find it. The prof could have spent the hour he spent forging info in Wikipedia, finding already forged misinformation and having his students research that. He could have started at the Scientology website, for example, then moved on to PETA and the NRA. I note with interest that, so far, none of us has tried to track down this professor's possibly apocryphal research ;-) --- Lee Capps Technology Specialist [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
In response to Lee Capps [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:00 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Svein Halvor Halvorsen Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:00 AM To: Lee Capps Cc: Thomas Dickey; Bill Moran; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?)) Bill Moran wrote: A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research And also: Where is this professor's ethics? Does he also misinform the students in class, only to later accuse them of not verifying the facts? And did he even think about the fact that others may have read his misinformation? Why does this professor think that his agenda is more important than Wikipedia's? Did he later correct the articles? I hope this professor got some sort of reaction from his University due to his unethical attitude towards openness, knowledge and science. I'm afraid I have to agree. The Prof was as lazy as his students. The world abounds in misinformation, it doesen't take a lot of effort to find it. The prof could have spent the hour he spent forging info in Wikipedia, finding already forged misinformation and having his students research that. He could have started at the Scientology website, for example, then moved on to PETA and the NRA. I note with interest that, so far, none of us has tried to track down this professor's possibly apocryphal research ;-) :D Perhaps this was all just a devious plan by me to make you all look like fools by watching your argue about the importance of checking sources while none of you checked your sources ... Muhahaha ... In any event, it's been a fascinating sociological lesson for me. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:17:32AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: Perhaps this was all just a devious plan by me to make you all look like fools by watching your argue about the importance of checking sources while none of you checked your sources ... Muhahaha ... In any event, it's been a fascinating sociological lesson for me. If you had provided the guy's Wikipedia account, we'd be able to check *your* sources -- wouldn't we? As long as you don't tell us the necessary information for checking up on it, we simply can't do anything with it. Sociological lesson? If you're just trying to get a reaction, I think the technical term is actually trolling. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] print substr(Just another Perl hacker, 0, -2); ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
In response to Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:17:32AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: Perhaps this was all just a devious plan by me to make you all look like fools by watching your argue about the importance of checking sources while none of you checked your sources ... Muhahaha ... In any event, it's been a fascinating sociological lesson for me. If you had provided the guy's Wikipedia account, we'd be able to check *your* sources -- wouldn't we? As long as you don't tell us the necessary information for checking up on it, we simply can't do anything with it. I gave my source. Have you contacted him? Why are you accusing me of failing to do something that I did? Sociological lesson? If you're just trying to get a reaction, I think the technical term is actually trolling. Don't invent things that aren't there. Yes, it's been a sociological lesson. No, I was not trying to get a reaction. The major sociological lesson is the reaction that I _did_ get, which I did not expect, and (quite frankly) didn't want -- still don't, for that matter. Perhaps you should switch to decaf? As for me, I will post no more on this topic to questions@ as the subject matter is no longer relevant, and is obviously inflammatory. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:48:46PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you had provided the guy's Wikipedia account, we'd be able to check *your* sources -- wouldn't we? As long as you don't tell us the necessary information for checking up on it, we simply can't do anything with it. I gave my source. Have you contacted him? Why are you accusing me of failing to do something that I did? Funny -- I don't remember seeing that information. Perhaps you could re-post it. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to build programs out of the wrong concepts. - Paul Graham ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
In response to Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:31:53AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: (of course, everyone knows that Wikipedia is the ultimate source of information and is infallible, right?) hardly. I'd expect that most intelligent readers would have encountered at least one wikipedia article which is inaccurate. Like any source of information, it's only a starting point. Hmm ...I suppose I should have explicitly marked that comment as sarcasm. I simply expected that people would understand that such a ridiculous remark could only be tongue-in-cheek. A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research assignment that involved that information. Apparently the number of students who trusted the false information without verifying it was quite high. I should take that as a lesson that most people _don't_ know how to verify the validity of information and be more careful when I make sarcastic statements. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Apr 25, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Bill Moran wrote: A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research assignment that involved that information. Apparently the number of students who trusted the false information without verifying it was quite high. I should take that as a lesson that most people _don't_ know how to verify the validity of information and be more careful when I make sarcastic statements. That's interesting, though, to pick a nit, it may just show that students were in a hurry, rather than that they necessarily trust the info or that they don't know _how_ to verify the info. --- Lee Capps Technology Specialist [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
Bill Moran wrote: A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research assignment that involved that information. Apparently the number of students who trusted the false information without verifying it was quite high. I should take that as a lesson that most people _don't_ know how to verify the validity of information and be more careful when I make sarcastic statements. Lee Capps wrote: That's interesting, though, to pick a nit, it may just show that students were in a hurry, rather than that they necessarily trust the info or that they don't know _how_ to verify the info. And also: Where is this professor's ethics? Does he also misinform the students in class, only to later accuse them of not verifying the facts? And did he even think about the fact that others may have read his misinformation? Why does this professor think that his agenda is more important than Wikipedia's? Did he later correct the articles? I hope this professor got some sort of reaction from his University due to his unethical attitude towards openness, knowledge and science. Svein Halvor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:59:43PM +0200, Svein Halvor Halvorsen wrote: Bill Moran wrote: A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research assignment that involved that information. Apparently the number of students who trusted the false information without verifying it was quite high. I should take that as a lesson that most people _don't_ know how to verify the validity of information and be more careful when I make sarcastic statements. Lee Capps wrote: That's interesting, though, to pick a nit, it may just show that students were in a hurry, rather than that they necessarily trust the info or that they don't know _how_ to verify the info. And also: Where is this professor's ethics? Does he also misinform the students in class, only to later accuse them of not verifying the facts? And did he even think about the fact that others may have read his misinformation? Why does this professor think that his agenda is more important than Wikipedia's? Did he later correct the articles? No kidding. That professor should have his Wikipedia account banned, and the head of his department should be informed of his vandalism. I don't suppose you know the name of his Wikipedia account, or his legal name. . . . -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. - W. Somerset Maugham ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:03PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: No kidding. That professor should have his Wikipedia account banned, and the head of his department should be informed of his vandalism. I don't suppose you know the name of his Wikipedia account, or his legal name. . . . yawn. That sort of research has been going on for years. Less interesting is the sort of trash emitted by people who don't like knowing that whatever they've read on a webpage might not be completely accurate, and that they might have to do some of their own thinking. regards. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net pgpR3piQ1RU0q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
--On Wednesday, April 25, 2007 15:29:04 -0400 Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:03PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: No kidding. That professor should have his Wikipedia account banned, and the head of his department should be informed of his vandalism. I don't suppose you know the name of his Wikipedia account, or his legal name. . . . yawn. That sort of research has been going on for years. Less interesting is the sort of trash emitted by people who don't like knowing that whatever they've read on a webpage might not be completely accurate, and that they might have to do some of their own thinking. regards. At one time I had high hopes that the internet would usher in a new era of increased knowledge and reduced gullibility. Instead it seems to have simply hastened the arrival to the wrong conclusions. -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:29:04PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:03PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: No kidding. That professor should have his Wikipedia account banned, and the head of his department should be informed of his vandalism. I don't suppose you know the name of his Wikipedia account, or his legal name. . . . yawn. That sort of research has been going on for years. The fact that some idiot professor takes leave of his senses every few months doesn't change the fact that these idiot professors should not be held accountable for vandalism. Less interesting is the sort of trash emitted by people who don't like knowing that whatever they've read on a webpage might not be completely accurate, and that they might have to do some of their own thinking. I definitely agree that's suboptimal. I'd expand that to include other sorts of pages, other than webpages, as well. It's pretty rare for this particular brand of intellectually lazy person to realize that about the printed page, though. I'm amused at the appropriateness of my randomly chosen sig to this topic, by the way. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could actually spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game. - Marvin Minsky ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:58:55PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: I definitely agree that's suboptimal. I'd expand that to include other sorts of pages, other than webpages, as well. It's pretty rare for this particular brand of intellectually lazy person to realize that about the printed page, though. I recall reading some interesting comments from studies (second hand, e.g., in Science News) which stated that people tended to believe things that were presented in a credible fashion, not questioning them - using the paper or page as an authority which amplified their own general beliefs on a topic. Aside from the circular referencing that occurs when believing that... It's certainly hard to see where/how to decide to stop and question the authority, given that premise (knowing that one is biased). But it's perhaps a good habit to get into - observing that reading things that one already agrees with are perhaps as problematic as those that one does not. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net pgp841KNhNsK7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 21:21:47 Thomas Dickey wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:58:55PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: I definitely agree that's suboptimal. I'd expand that to include other sorts of pages, other than webpages, as well. It's pretty rare for this particular brand of intellectually lazy person to realize that about the printed page, though. I recall reading some interesting comments from studies (second hand, e.g., in Science News) which stated that people tended to believe things that were presented in a credible fashion, not questioning them - using the paper or page as an authority which amplified their own general beliefs on a topic. Aside from the circular referencing that occurs when believing that... It's certainly hard to see where/how to decide to stop and question the authority, given that premise (knowing that one is biased). But it's perhaps a good habit to get into - observing that reading things that one already agrees with are perhaps as problematic as those that one does not. If there was an easy answer to this quistion most con attists would be out of a job. Even high ranking universities has been known to employ a con man from time to time - so while the discussion is relevant - i don't see any reason that this thread should not be in chat ;-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?))
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Svein Halvor Halvorsen Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:00 AM To: Lee Capps Cc: Thomas Dickey; Bill Moran; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the relative advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory 3.5GB not used?)) Bill Moran wrote: A friend of mine going for his Dr. at CMU (Patrick Wagstrom: GNOME guy) describes an exercise where a professor intentionally injected false information into Wikipedia, then gave his students a research And also: Where is this professor's ethics? Does he also misinform the students in class, only to later accuse them of not verifying the facts? And did he even think about the fact that others may have read his misinformation? Why does this professor think that his agenda is more important than Wikipedia's? Did he later correct the articles? I hope this professor got some sort of reaction from his University due to his unethical attitude towards openness, knowledge and science. I'm afraid I have to agree. The Prof was as lazy as his students. The world abounds in misinformation, it doesen't take a lot of effort to find it. The prof could have spent the hour he spent forging info in Wikipedia, finding already forged misinformation and having his students research that. He could have started at the Scientology website, for example, then moved on to PETA and the NRA. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
