WWTL FAQ (Version 1.07)

Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>>>>>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the Defense Mapping Agency
>>>>>>>>> Why would one trust an "Agency" that can't spell?
>>>>>>>> As opposed to Wikipedia, something so unstable in terms of content that
>>>>>>>> schools won't let it be used as a primary source?
>>>>>>> It matches the Encyclopedia Brittanica for accuracy AIUI.
>>>>>> Bwahawhawhawhawhawhaw !!
>>>>> I fail to see anything amusing about that.
>>>> Bwahawhawhawhawhawhawahawhawhawhawhawhawahawhawhaw hawhawhaw !!
>>>>
>>>> From the Clue Desk -- Wikipedia can be edited and modified by its readers.
>>> That's the whole point.
>> A professionally written and published encyclopedia versus one that can
>> be continually edited and modified by amateurs?
>
> And experts.
>
> Graham
>

But the problem is sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Bod

Bod wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the Defense Mapping Agency
> >>>>>>>>> Why would one trust an "Agency" that can't spell?
> >>>>>>>> As opposed to Wikipedia, something so unstable in terms of content that
> >>>>>>>> schools won't let it be used as a primary source?
> >>>>>>> It matches the Encyclopedia Brittanica for accuracy AIUI.
> >>>>>> Bwahawhawhawhawhawhaw !!
> >>>>> I fail to see anything amusing about that.
> >>>> Bwahawhawhawhawhawhawahawhawhawhawhawhawahawhawhaw hawhawhaw !!
> >>>>
> >>>> From the Clue Desk -- Wikipedia can be edited and modified by its readers.
> >>> That's the whole point.
> >> A professionally written and published encyclopedia versus one that can
> >> be continually edited and modified by amateurs?
> >
> > And experts.
>
> But the problem is sorting the wheat from the chaff.

It's pretty much been done IME.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:
> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
>
>>> "My side"? You mistake me for someone who hangs around in a pack.
>>>
>> Since you seem to need the long version:
>>
>> Your question is questioning the source I presented in defense (or
>> defence, if you like) of the HMS Hood having gone down in the Denmark
>> Strait. I'm doing the same to the few sources presented in defense of
>> the HMS Hood having gone down outside the Denmark Strait
>
> Here's a clue, Sensayuma is not a town in Nevada.
>

Sensayuma doesn't appear to refer to a location at all, unless it comes
up somewhere around the 197th page of the Google search. Your point?

>
>>>> (his, since you aren't posting any).
>>> Lie.
>> Do tell.
>
> I've provided sources for the staments that I make when appropriate to
> do so. "you aren't posting any" is an absolute statement.

I went back and looked through all of your drivel in this thread. I saw
a lot of the word(?) '****wit'. I saw a lot of complaints about grammar
and spelling. I saw a link to a Google Earth type map showing the
location of the Denmark Strait as a point rather than a region. I saw a
lot of assertions that the HMS Hood went down outside the Denmark
Strait. I did not see any sources presented in defense of those
assertions. So I say again: Do tell.

--Andy

Eeyore > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wikipedia can be edited and modified by its readers.
>>>
>>> That's the whole point.
>>
>> A professionally written and published encyclopedia versus one that can
>> be continually edited and modified by amateurs?
>
> And experts.

Well, yes, but on any particular article it is hard to know how many
experts have taken the time to review and correct things that they
disagree with, or whether they have come back to re-correct changes to
their own work.

And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
level of more confidence.

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the Defense Mapping Agency
>>>>>>> Why would one trust an "Agency" that can't spell?
>>>>>> As opposed to Wikipedia, something so unstable in terms of content that
>>>>>> schools won't let it be used as a primary source?
>>>>> Who mentioned Wikipedia?
>>>> Your friend (Eeyore) keeps posting links from there.
>>> Any objection ? It's as reliable a source as you'll find on the net. I've even
>>> corrected articles myself where I saw silly errors.
>> You make my point for me. It's all too easy to make changes to
>> Wikipedia, whether they be correct or incorrect. This makes it truly
>> unreliable as a primary source for anything because you don't know
>> anything about the person that made the change with respect to whether
>> they are a reliable source or not.
>
> Those errors have been very few in number and quite a few were just gramattical
> corrections. I always log in before editing anyway.
>

So? What about the person that made the previous edit? The next edit?
The most recent edit on the page about Timbuktu? The Apollo Program?
The Denmark Strait? If it's not referenced, I have no capability to
quickly check the validity of the statement being made. If it is
referenced, I can go to that reference, check it out and see if it is
authoritative or just someone's opinion (and use that as the source link
rather than Wikipedia).

--Andy

Andrew Tompkins > wrote:

> > Here's a clue, Sensayuma is not a town in Nevada.
> >
>
> Sensayuma doesn't appear to refer to a location at all, unless it comes up
> somewhere around the 197th page of the Google search. Your point?

Made adequately by your reply.

Scott M. Kozel > wrote:

> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
> level of more confidence.

Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?

(Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
>
>> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
>> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
>> level of more confidence.
>
> Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
> little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?

No one has informed me of such a study ... who has validated it?

Scott M. Kozel > wrote:

> (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> >
> >> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
> >> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
> >> level of more confidence.
> >
> > Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
> > little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?
>
> No one has informed me of such a study

I informed readers of this thread about it in:

Message-ID: >
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:51:21 +0100

Perhaps if you didn't treat news as a write-only medium you would have
noticed it?

> ... who has validated it?

The editorial board of Nature. Who are generally regarded as good enough
to validate papers which are substantially more complex and important
than willy-waving about the relative value of encyclopedias.

Andrew Tompkins wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >>>> Steve Firth wrote:
> >>>>> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
> >>>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
> >>>>>>> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the Defense Mapping Agency
> >>>>>>> Why would one trust an "Agency" that can't spell?
> >>>>>> As opposed to Wikipedia, something so unstable in terms of content that
> >>>>>> schools won't let it be used as a primary source?
> >>>>> Who mentioned Wikipedia?
> >>>> Your friend (Eeyore) keeps posting links from there.
> >>> Any objection ? It's as reliable a source as you'll find on the net. I've even
> >>> corrected articles myself where I saw silly errors.
> >> You make my point for me. It's all too easy to make changes to
> >> Wikipedia, whether they be correct or incorrect. This makes it truly
> >> unreliable as a primary source for anything because you don't know
> >> anything about the person that made the change with respect to whether
> >> they are a reliable source or not.
> >
> > Those errors have been very few in number and quite a few were just gramattical
> > corrections. I always log in before editing anyway.
>
> So? What about the person that made the previous edit? The next edit?
> The most recent edit on the page about Timbuktu? The Apollo Program?
> The Denmark Strait? If it's not referenced, I have no capability to
> quickly check the validity of the statement being made. If it is
> referenced, I can go to that reference, check it out and see if it is
> authoritative or just someone's opinion (and use that as the source link
> rather than Wikipedia).

Face the facts. It's a very reliable source because those with an interest and
knowledge in a given area keep it monitored and up to date in a way that print books
can't ever manage.

Just naysaying wikipidea for its own sake is a 'non-argument'. You might as well say
nothing on the Internet can be used as a source.

Graham