-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Bart Silverstrim
Cc: Paul Schmehl; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of the
relativeadvantages/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.
Wikipedia won't, mainly because there's another competing web
encyclopedia out there that is taking this approach.
However, you sound like you have a case of sour grapes, and you
definitely don't sound like you have read much on Wikipedia.
The true value of Wikipedia is that it can deal with controversial
subjects. Take abortion, for example. Reading
about it in a peer reviewed encyclopedia, if you didn't know
dick about it, you would wonder what all the controversy was about -
because those entries are completely stripped out of all loaded
phrases and emotion.
The same goes with the 2000 US Presidential election. A huge number
of people, possibly the majority in the country, believe that there
were dirty tricks and that the election was stolen. But, you won't
get any sense of that at all reading about it in the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
I couldn't read the online entries about either of those topics in
a peer-reviewed encyclopedia and even end up knowing where to go to
find each sides wacko-rediculous statements, and without reading any
of that stuff there's no way anyone can understand how unsolvable
that issues like that are.
Wikipedia is one of the best starting platforms out there on subjects.
Naturally, you don't take it as canonical. But, it is going to suggest
avenues of research that the official stuff won't. For example, look
up operation freakout and operation snow white in Wikipedia, and
look them up in an official encyclopedia. Quite an amazing difference,
there.
Ted
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
