Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-27-2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It certainly depends on the matter you are dealing with. I go to Wiki quite often as a starter. I read it and decide how veracious the material appears to be and maybe look for bibliography.

Let me try harder to make sense.

When you read a Wikipedia article (admittedly this is not true of all of them), you'll notice that there's no real cohesion, that the articles feel very modular; each section does not support every other section, since it is likely written by a different person, with a different thesis in mind. Contrast this with professionally written articles, articles written by scholars, and the distinction is clear: The articles are unified theses that deliver information in a linear, incremental, pedagogically-sound manner. I don't think Wikipedia can ever achieve this, since there is that ever-present tug of war between conflicting interests, resulting in the dryness and disunity, no thanks to that exalted pillar of Wiki policy: NPOV.

That's my 2 cents of dribble.

I've already granted the faults. At present, I've been roping in the excesses of incoherence of the Julian article. I've got a long way to go, but I've been giving it some more coherent form and hacking the crap out. And believe me there is still a lot of crap. I'm trying to "neutralize" it by getting rid of the severely christian bias, relocating pious legends. Maybe one can get a better understanding of the man then.

Some stuff just doesn't fall foul of much of the usual bias because they don't have content that attracts it. I've also done some work on the

Dura Europos article and it's been peaceful.

I still don't think you should write it all off. It's baby and bathwater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

It changes my answer to the question: Cigarette or Wiki?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's probably more like belligerence and of that it's good you don't share it.

Inspiring belligerence, to be sure

I've inspired a few edit wars, one over BCE/CE.

spin

razlyubleno · 03-27-2009, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I still don't think you should write it all off. It's baby and bathwater.

There may be hope for me yet. We'll see what happens. I'll register an account, lurk a little bit, maybe say something snarky now and then ("spin, enough with your blasted syntheses and original research!!"). Who knows, I might actually edit something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I've inspired a few edit wars, one over BCE/CE.

I read that one. Before you mentioned about AD/BC having an inbuilt error, I never thought about it that way. Good call. But have you ever noticed that your JSTOR results always fall on deaf ears?

razly

spin · 03-27-2009, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I still don't think you should write it all off. It's baby and bathwater.

There may be hope for me yet. We'll see what happens. I'll register an account, lurk a little bit, maybe say something snarky now and then ("spin, enough with your blasted syntheses and original research!!"). Who knows, I might actually edit something.

And it'll be good for the soul... until some idiot edits it back to pap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I've inspired a few edit wars, one over BCE/CE.

I read that one. Before you mentioned about AD/BC having an inbuilt error, I never thought about it that way. Good call. But have you ever noticed that your JSTOR results always fall on deaf ears?

JSTOR, Wiki, Google. When they already know what the right figures should be.

spin

Toto · 06-05-2009, 06:35 PM

Wikipedia blocks access from Church of Scientology

Quote:

In a post on Foreign Policy's website, technology blogger Evgeny Morozov wondered whether "Wikipedia's decision opens Pandora's box."

"Why allow Christians to edit articles on Christianity?" he asked.

Hmm :constern01:

premjan · 06-06-2009, 08:43 AM

They can link both names.

mountainman · 06-26-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Wikipedia blocks access from Church of Scientology

Quote:

In a post on Foreign Policy's website, technology blogger Evgeny Morozov wondered whether "Wikipedia's decision opens Pandora's box."

"Why allow Christians to edit articles on Christianity?" he asked.

Hmm :constern01:

To quote the author of the Acts of the Thomas ....

And when the king heard that,
he rubbed his face with his hands,
and shook his head for a long space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

They can link both names.

Not in the Holy Writ of Wikipedia they must not!
The Wikipedian Christians have their own glasses.
They are protective editors of their own perspective.

There shall only be one set of editors of Wikipedia.
Not two or three or four.
Who shall it be class?

You, there in the front row, asleep.
YES YOU!!
Who shall edit Wikipedia?

Um..... Christian Wikipedians?

Correct.
Carry on.

Actually I'd like to correct this.
It appears that the CHRISTIAN presence in WIKI
has had a facelift and is now replaced with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...oject_Religion

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...n#Christianity

All the "CHRISTIAN PROJECT BANNERS" which I thought
until recently were strewn all about WIKI seem to have
been removed. Interesting development -- if true.

Am I imagining things?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-06-2009, 08:43 AM	#35
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	They can link both names.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.