Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: In response to Jon Awbrey's request...
> Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE('Jonny Cache')
Dear Sacasticide-A-List,

Please try the following experiment. Read this recent article in the Chronicle Of Higher Education's Online Rag and read all of the comments, pro and con Wikipedia. Then summarize your impressions of the whole under what you think is the most appropriate title.

We'll compare and contrast anon — that means soon …


1. A faculty member at the University of Texas at Dallas takes the position that Wikipedia can be useful, especially if the history and discussion pages are used to provide some context for what is being read.
2. In response, a number of Wikipedia detractors highlight accuracy-related shortcomings of Wikipedia vis-à-vis traditional (i.e. fact-checked) encyclopaedias.
3. A number of other readers argue that, while Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted absolutely, its shortcomings do not prevent it from being useful as a starting point for research.
4. There seems to a be general consensus (har) that Wikipedia's entries on hard science and pop culture are more accurate than its entries on more academic "soft" subjects (history, politics, biography, and the like).

Is this what you were requesting?
Moulton
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Wed 20th February 2008, 2:49am) *
A faculty member at the University of Texas at Dallas takes the position that:
1. Wikipedia can be useful, especially if the history and discussion pages are used to provide some context for what is being read.

2. In response, a number of Wikipedia detractors highlight accuracy-related shortcomings of Wikipedia vis-à-vis traditional (i.e. fact-checked) encyclopaedias.

3. A number of other readers argue that, while Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted absolutely, its shortcomings do not prevent it from being useful as a starting point for research.

4. There seems to a be general consensus (har) that Wikipedia's entries on hard science and pop culture are more accurate than its entries on more academic "soft" subjects (history, politics, biography, and the like).

I generally agree with the above assessment of Wikipedia.
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Wed 20th February 2008, 2:49am) *

QUOTE('Jonny Cache')

Dear Sacasticide-A-List,

Please try the following experiment. Read this recent article in the Chronicle Of Higher Education's Online Rag and read all of the comments, pro and con Wikipedia. Then summarize your impressions of the whole under what you think is the most appropriate title.

We'll compare and contrast anon — that means soon …

  1. A faculty member at the University of Texas at Dallas takes the position that Wikipedia can be useful, especially if the history and discussion pages are used to provide some context for what is being read.
  2. In response, a number of Wikipedia detractors highlight accuracy-related shortcomings of Wikipedia vis-à-vis traditional (i.e. fact-checked) encyclopaedias.
  3. A number of other readers argue that, while Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted absolutely, its shortcomings do not prevent it from being useful as a starting point for research.
  4. There seems to a be general consensus (har) that Wikipedia's entries on hard science and pop culture are more accurate than its entries on more academic "soft" subjects (history, politics, biography, and the like).
Is this what you were requesting?


For members of the home e-dience who choose to accept the e-signment, but who may have lost track of the many splintered threads involved in the exercise, here's a recap:Jonny cool.gif
Jonny Cache
I lost the thread of this discussion — well, to put a finer WR:POINT on it, the WR:Mooderators ripped out the threads of this discussion — but maybe I can get back to it when and if their WR:MOOD changes.

Hey, maybe they can borrow that Spine that's been making the circuit of late, now that the ArbClowns have tossed it out …

Not that I'm holding my breath FORUM Image you understand …

Jonny cool.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.