Article

2005-01-07 Home Front: Tech

Instapundit Challenges Wikipedia Credibility

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-07 4:00:30 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, If you want put anything on there they will take it. That a number of over active leftist wankers tend to post lots there should tell you something. If you don't like something on there don't worry it will change, repeatedly. Funny facts rarely change if they are right in the real world.

Would anyone cite any Wiki for any purpose in the real world?

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-07 12:11:29 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-07 12:11:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Aris is a source for Wikipedia. I stand by his credibility...off to the right a little bit, but nearby...ok, within "the vicinity"

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-07 12:14:06 AM|| 2005-01-07 12:14:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 If you don't like something on Wikipedia, the answer isn't "don't worry it will change", the answer is "go change it yourself". It takes half a minute and you don't even need to register to do it.

Let's hear less whining about wrong information in Wikipedia, and more effort to correct it, shan't we?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:16:27 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-07 12:16:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Pavlov's Dog, I swear....get some sleep, Aris

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-07 12:17:41 AM|| 2005-01-07 12:17:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 2 minutes, 21 seconds has to be a record

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-07 12:18:57 AM|| 2005-01-07 12:18:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Frank, stop obsessing over me and my sleeping habits.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:19:33 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-07 12:19:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 That was 1 min, 14 secs, Frank - your own reply to me. My first post here was a response to Sock Puppet.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:21:28 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-07 12:21:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The one I would target is the British Probert Encyclopedia, which is professionally produced, widely cited, and riddled with Goebbels-inspired anti-American propaganda, including this rant that passes as an article on the Invasion of Iraq. The phrase "according to opponents of the war" was inserted only recently btw. Before that, the article stated the conspiracy theory as a fact.

Probert also contains many examples of that time-dishonored lefty academic device, the incidental histori-lie, as in this passage from Battle of the Bulge:

"The battle is notorious for the atrocious war crimes committed by both sides, notably the slaughter of
prisoners of war taken during the offensive."

This certainly invites a conclusion of equivalence, but what evidence is there that American forces committed "atrocious war crimes" or that these are in any way "notorious" as compared to those of the Germans?

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-07 9:19:22 AM|| 2005-01-07 9:19:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Regards Wiki - Aris makes the case against it, certainly not for it, in #3. Where is the obvious requirement that the edit / entry be, at the least, quarantined until vetted by several authoritative sources? The essence of this proud proclamation being any jackass can contribute their spin or spew. Wiki used to be useful - I no longer trust it even for historical factual timeline information - it has been PC-ized regards Islamists by Islamists and Symps. I only quote it occasionally, now, and only for apolitical topics.

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 9:57:24 AM|| 2005-01-07 9:57:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 .com> A bird can't pull a plow, and quarantining an entry "until vetted by authoritative sources" goes against the core of the Wiki concept.

The minus is as you say - that any jackass can edit Wikipedia. The plus is that any jackass can edit Wikipedia. If the whole process needed to pass through "vetting" by authorative sources, it'd be unlikely that Wikipedia would have reached the width and breadth of topics it has reached.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-07 12:11:49 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-07 12:11:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 âWould anyone cite any Wiki for any purpose in the real world?â

Wiki works well for science topics.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2005-01-07 12:24:25 PM|| 2005-01-07 12:24:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Yesterday I wikied a book I just read and spent a couple of hours linking around in there. The information provided on this historical novel was quite interesting.

BTW, I highly recommend "The Egyptian", by Mika HÃ¤kkinen. Many eerie parallels to the politics of today, and a darn good read.

Posted by Seafarious 2005-01-07 3:17:41 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:17:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 "Historical Novel"?

The typecast bomb is inbound! LOL and heh!

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-07 5:36:04 PM|| 2005-01-07 5:36:04 PM|| Front Page Top

04:12 diaspora every 79 years
00:15 Mike Sylwester
00:03 .com
23:57 .com
23:55 .com
23:48 nada
23:47 SR71
23:45 AJackson
23:41 .com
23:39 AJackson
23:39 trailing wife
23:37 Shipman
23:35 trailing wife
23:34 gromky
23:16 Pappy
23:15 Atomic Conspiracy
23:13 Dave D.
23:13 Silentbrick
23:02 .com
22:59 Dave D.
22:57 .com
22:52 SwissTex
22:50 2b
22:45 Barbara Skolaut