Off topic:
I wish people would stop thinking of Wikipedia as a source.
/off topic
I wish people would stop thinking of Wikipedia as a source.
/off topic
-
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius
"The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain
"The only gossip I'm interested in is things from the Weekly World News - 'Woman's bra bursts, 11 injured'. That kind of thing." - Johnny Depp
-
Re: Looking for a religion similar to Shinto
It's not Wikipedia that is the source, but the references provided at the bottom of the page which allows one to verify the informations.Originally posted by ChainLightning View Post
-
Re: Looking for a religion similar to Shinto
Check out this link http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/shugendou.html
- - - Updated - - -
Wikipedia is Wikipedia is Wikipedia and never considered as a valid source in anything i've ever seen other than as at best a very un-academic suggestion. Especially considering there is no quality control or verification of data.Originally posted by Wonder View PostIt's not Wikipedia that is the source, but the references provided at the bottom of the page which allows one to verify the informations.I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!Comment
-
Re: Looking for a religion similar to Shinto
Originally posted by monsno_leedra View Post
And yet has been demonstrated to be comparable with other encyclopedic sources. As a starting point for research, is considered acceptable, though not entirely reliable.
Though, I tend to think that all sources should be approached this way, particularly with regard to UPG or SPG.A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' limited in time and space. He experiences himself...as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a prison for us... Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the of whole nature in its beauty...
--Albert EinsteinComment
-
Re: Looking for a religion similar to Shinto
And yet has been demonstrated to be comparable with other encyclopedic sources. As a starting point for research, is considered acceptable, though not entirely reliable.
Though, I tend to think that all sources should be approached this way, particularly with regard to UPG or SPG.
NO where in the academic world is Wikipedia a valid or acceptable source in any fashion. So sorry just because lazy people find it so usable doesn't make it acceptable or valid. Nor does it lend any credence to their supposed arguments or validity to their supposed proof. Especially if they lead it off as their primary source material.
Sad occultism and occult practices as well as witchcraft used to be seen as cunning craft, way of the wise, etc. Guess that's how you dumb it down when it becomes a fad or counter culture movement.I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!Comment
-
Re: Looking for a religion similar to Shinto
I didn't say that it was a valid academic source. I said that it was an acceptable STARTING point for research.
And it is an acceptable starting point for research--to gain an introductory overview of a new topic that one may be unfamiliar with and a beginning list of sources that one might follow, and use to find still more sources. Many Wiki articles link directly to sources that are acceptable academic sources--news articles, journal articles, original texts, etc. Wiki has been found comparable to encyclopedias. No one should be using those for academic research either--but as an introductory overview of a new topic that one may be unfamiliar with, they are quite lovely. Also quite expensive, quickly dated, and cumbersome. Not everyone has easy access to a set of encyclopedias every time they want a quick overview on an unfamiliar topic. Certianly it isn't perfect--it is suceptible to mischief, to error, and to manipulation.......but so is all information.
Choosing wiki for being some unholy evil of information sources seems a bit like Luddite reactionism. One should be aware of the potential for error and manipulation in all information, including information they discern for themselves. Even in peer-reviewed journal articles for clinical research (a perfectly valid academic source), there are often easily found errors in personal bias, experimental design, statistic misuse or misintrepretation, and even outright fraud.A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' limited in time and space. He experiences himself...as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a prison for us... Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the of whole nature in its beauty...
--Albert EinsteinComment
-
Re: Looking for a religion similar to Shinto
In order
1) Answering an article from a state library association with an assertion and bitching about the world doesn't actually counter the article.
2) Using bitching to sidestep everyone realizing that one is being too lazy to address the source provided is neither subtle nor entertaining.
3) The entirety of the source debate is off topic. This tangent can move to PMs, Debates or the nearest convenient graveyard. The particpants can decide on their own or I can choose for them.life itself was a lightsaber in his hands; even in the face of treachery and death and hopes gone cold, he burned like a candle in the darkness. Like a star shining in the black eternity of space.
Yoda: Dark Rendezvous
"But those men who know anything at all about the Light also know that there is a fierceness to its power, like the bare sword of the law, or the white burning of the sun." Suddenly his voice sounded to Will very strong, and very Welsh. "At the very heart, that is. Other things, like humanity, and mercy, and charity, that most good men hold more precious than all else, they do not come first for the Light. Oh, sometimes they are there; often, indeed. But in the very long run the concern of you people is with the absolute good, ahead of all else..."
John Rowlands, The Grey King by Susan Cooper
"You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content."
Aslan, Prince Caspian by CS Lewis
Comment
-
Re: Looking for a religion similar to Shinto
We all know that Wikipedia is an open-source body of knowledge accessible to the public for contributions and participations. But that is not the point, the relevance and credibility of a Wikipedia article comes from the references provided at the bottom of the page, and that can be found in just about every article which are of verifiable sources. There may be inaccuracies or misinterpretations, but the interesting thing is that you can actually verifiy just about every claims in an article, for they are annoted by numbers, to be found in the references below.Originally posted by monsno_leedra View Post
Why should I pass on a valuable source of knowledge, especially when the informations provided can be verified by anyone interested to dig up?Last edited by Wonder; 16 Apr 2014, 07:39.Comment
-
Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
sigpicComment
-
Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia
I wouldn't use Wikki in an academic paper, but, when I need a timeline or date, or a quick bit of info, or a starting point, or the text for a proposed bill, I go to Wikki.Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.
Comment
-
Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia
Rules of academia:
1) No source may remain unverified. (This goes for Encyclopaedia Britannica or an article in The Lancet as well as for Wikipedia)
2) No source can stand alone. (See above)Warning: The above post may contain traces of sarcasm.
An apostrophe is the difference between a business that knows its shit, and a business that knows it's shit.
"Why is every object we don't understand always called a thing?" (McCoy. Star Trek: The Moive Picture)Comment
-
Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia
I absolutely don't mind someone starting off with wiki. But when they use a link to wiki, to back whatever claim, I automatically disregard the source. Period. Now, if that same person goes and starts at wiki, then proceeds to check out wiki's sources, and gives THOSE links, we're good to go. As one providing the source, it behooves them to use a valid source. Wiki is not it.
As in, it isn't MY job to go verify the accuracy of Wiki, by checking it's sources, when I'm the one asking for the source, backing up some claim. If you [in the general sense] say that unicorns have purple manes, and link to a wiki page that says exactly that, you've not provided a source.
For all intents and purposes, that could be self-referenced or self-published being passed off as a reliable. The author, of whatever material, can write whatever they want, on their site, in their book, whatever, go onto wiki and edit a page and link to their site, book, whatever, as proof that the edit/version of wiki is then true. The reader has no evidence to the contrary. It's the same with using any other questionable website, as a source.
The key is reliable information. Wiki is good for a starting point, just as google is. WHO is doing the research? Wiki isn't. Google isn't.
Bringing Google, Britannica, or any other encyclopedia, into the debate is a fallacy, btw. Just a quick FYI.
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius
"The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain
"The only gossip I'm interested in is things from the Weekly World News - 'Woman's bra bursts, 11 injured'. That kind of thing." - Johnny Depp
Comment
-
Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia
Not when the claim was only that Wiki isn't a valid source because its unreliable due to a lack of "quality control" and "verification of data" (monsno's post) (and, Wiki does actually have systems in place for this). What is it unreliable in comparison to? The only thing you *can* compare it to is an encyclopedia, because its an encyclopedia--comparing it to other encyclopedias (particularly when said comparison has been carried out by a peer reviewed journal) is perfectly legit.Bringing Google, Britannica, or any other encyclopedia, into the debate is a fallacy, btw. Just a quick FYI.Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
sigpicComment
-
Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia
Wiki does have a policy and procedure in place to verify source material but that verification is left to whomever enters their own data to state it is correct and assigned to a source document. On many an entry there are conflicting entries as to what is correct. A secondary page on many entries having numerous entries as to why something is wrong and why the source material cited is misinterpreted or out and out incorrect yet the entry remains none the less.Originally posted by thalassa View Post
Source material may or may not be actually verifiable and academic level peer reviewed. In many ways the typical accuracy of the material and credentials of the person entering it is about as academic based as a lot of pagan written books.
There is little to no quality control over whoever enters data, determination that the entry is true and correct or even evaluated of basic grammatical structure and correctness. What makes it even worse when someone references other on-line databases of a similar nature most if not all simply cut and paste the very wiki articles themselves so yes they seem to support one another.
Wiki to me is very much similar to the many pagan sites that used to dominate the net. Person A enters it as assumed fact, person B copies A, Person C copies B, person D then copies C and notes person C as the source of said item. On and on it goes until you get a Mad Magazine article as the source document and all the references are to one another as are the endorsements saying how great a article / book / editorial are. Unfortunately none of them actually reference the initial source document and when they do frequently its someones personal opinion, Thus hearsay becomes assumed factual and credited source material because there is no quality control and verification. None of that even touching upon plagiarism and copyright infringement.
To me if your going to suggest your source is for instance THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH by William Shirer then say that don't point to some wiki page on WWII as the source or reference. Hoping that whomever might read the page is going to go through all the steps to verify the source material, author's conclusions and validity of material and ensure it is correct for you, the person who referenced wiki as their source.
Of course just my opinion. I just find it easier to learn something properly the first time and from valid and verifiable sources than some assumed to be maybe valid site.I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!Comment
-
Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia
Originally posted by thalassa View Post
Wiki, as an encyclopedia, okay. I'll grant you that. Except that, really, Wiki is not an encyclopedia. It's not even a search engine. Wiki is just a simple repository for public opinion, interspersed with [crumbs of] viable data. The same public that edits Wiki also controls the "quality control" and verification: volunteers/visitors.
That's not an encyclopedia. That's a bulletin board run by anarchy. As soon as someone fixes whatever mis- or disinformation has been edited-in, the same, or another, jackwad can re-edit the tripe right back into it.**
At least with encyclopedias, the authors are trying to be responsible. That's the difference between mistakes and propaganda. Accidents and vandalism. Apples and oranges. Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikiduped.
**In fact, I ran into that exact scenario, just a day or three ago, when I started looking up information on Jeffrey MacDonald. I found some oddities in the article, and when I went to post them on the 'talk about' page, people had been griping about these changes that kept popping up, without source links, or with bad links, etc.
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius
"The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain
"The only gossip I'm interested in is things from the Weekly World News - 'Woman's bra bursts, 11 injured'. That kind of thing." - Johnny Depp
Comment
Comment