|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:17 am |
  |
|
HAhahaha.
Worse still, the supposed “democratisation” of the web has been a sham. “Despite its lofty idealisation it’s undermining truth, souring civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience and talent,” he says. Has he looked at American media? National televised news is not democratic, it's imperial-capitalistic. Orders from the top down, decisions based on who's worth the most money. You don't get much more truth or civic discourse there, either.
Arbitrating on the dispute, Wikipedia gave no weight to his expertise, and treated him with the same credibility as his anonymous opponent. de·moc·ra·cy "The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community."
The simple truth is that the mediocre majority was always there, just not as noisy. The simple truth is that they never would've been paying for a subscription to Britannica anyway. The simple truth is that despite the wanton innaccuracies of Wikipedia, the masses are still better informed now than before -- which may not be saying much, but it's a little thing we call "progress."
So the expat brit is going boo-hoo over the lack of imperialism on the internet. Gosh dang. I'll muster up what little Native American blood I've got in me so I can cry a solitary, stoic tear.
_________________
 |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:35 am |
|
|
| blind wrote: |
| Of course, not all feedback is worth something, which is why I use Greasemonkey to turn off all Youtube comments. |
Amen.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:09 am |
|
|
| dhex wrote: |
| it just raises the obvious potential that as millions network, stupidity can be passed as easily as useful information. |
As opposed to leaving the masses unenlightened in the first place. How many people would've bothered going out of their way to learn "proper" things that tend to be taught in a linear, impersonal manner? Instead we give them a more self-directed and active form of learning. It is a very unofficial, experiential learning, as opposed to a guided and professional education.
Professional education, of course, takes professionalism, and professionals tend to seek compensation for their efforts. Thus Ye Olde Encyclopaedia Britannica wants your fiat, whereas wikipedia (which is nearly as good, but not quite as professional) is a progressive labor of love which is given for free.
Did you know that the entry for Kingdom Hearts has 69 references as of this writing? The intelligentsia's backlash against the observed lack of professionalism has caused the masses to take their game up a notch. Whether such a comprehensive entry on Kingdom Hearts is really useful to the world in itself is debatable, however, its contributors are now acting with more professionalism than before.
The net effect is that the 'democratization' of the web is making a boiler-room of agitation and evolution for the people who had no voice at all in the past.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:31 am |
|
|
If a person is interested in Kingdom Hearts, then the 69 references may be useful. It is relative to the individual's interests.
If the professionals claim that they are better in part because they are well-referenced, then being well-referenced may be considered an act of professionalism. It is relative to the individual's definition of professionalism.
As for trustworthiness? Most institutions that matter will give shitstain grades to anyone who trusts any encyclopedia enough to use it as a reference by itself. At a certain point, then, there is a concession that no encyclopedia is fully trustworthy, that they are merely regurgitations of other people's research. Trusting any encyclopedia would be, indeed, Cargo Cult Science.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:56 pm |
|
|
| dhex wrote: |
| and the cargo cult part of this jibe is that the kingdom hearts writer(s) seem to think that many references = good referencing. which is fine for wikipedia, but that's not exactly saying a lot. |
And does Britannica have any information at all on Kingdom Hearts? When searched, the only relevant results are Google Ads. So "not exactly saying a lot" is the difference between absolutely zero information and lots of referenced information.
| Quote: |
| but i don't think its elitist to say that sometimes there are people who are experts and there are those who are not, and an encyclopedia made up of 50,000 non-experts may indeed be less valuable than one written by 1000 experts in various fields. |
That, uh, point has never been disputed. My point is that the experts (or "professionals" as I've referred to them) want money for their work, while at the same time not covering all of the subjects that a common person might be interested in.
| Quote: |
| this may be crazy talk in the web 2.0 era, but 15 minutes of myspace or livejournal is a cheap, if effective, way of making the same point. (or the unabomber's point for that matter) |
And these are people who likely would never have paid for a Britannica subscription in the first place.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Trusting any encyclopedia would be, indeed, Cargo Cult Science. |
that's not what the term means. |
Eh? If I take a few isolated pieces of another civilization -- runways, parachute cloth, rations -- and crudely arrange or emulate those things, it is foolish for me to assume that I will be on the level of that civilization, or that they will have a reason to come back to me. Likewise, if I wrote a research paper which depended solely on research conducted by cracking open a dictionary, I should not expect to be competent in that subject or worthy of earning a degree in it.
That fits my definition of Cargo Cult Science.
I do see your original point, in that the zeal of making 69 references does not necessarily mean that the work is professional. Once again, though, it drills into definitions of professionalism:
If a Kingdom Hearts reference includes lines from the game, how is that different from a Holy Bible reference which includes lines from the book? If a reference to Gamespot says something about the development of Kingdom Hearts which may or may not be correct, then how is that different from a reference to one of the Popes saying something about the mother Mary that may or may not be correct?
(Aside from the elitist perspective of, "WELL THE HOLY BIBLE IS IMPORTANT AND NOBODY SHOULD CARE ABOUT KINGDOM HEARTS.")
| Quote: |
| trust is a continuum, to be sure. that's got fuckall to do with with the original author's (somewhat misguided, somewhat real) fear of passion being a replacement for intelligence and research. |
And that, in the end, goes back to one of my original points in earlier posts: It's a little thing we call 'progress'.
Where the earliest entries for Kingdom Hearts may have been founded on passion with no research at all, the contributors have now been challenged to put that passion into research. And, indeed, 69 references of buckshot research take some passion to put together. Is it as good as Britannica?
No.
It's better.
Britannica doesn't have any information on the game at all.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:28 pm |
|
|
The stuffy elitist academics tend to say that we should all have the sense to support the important and professional endeavors of the likes of Britannica, rather than waste our precious time on this earth with whatever it is that we expend our time and effort on.
If there is only so much time in a day, and the human attention span only lasts for so long, then clearly we should direct people toward things that matter to the intelligentsia, rather than let them decide for themselves.
Which is a special topic unto itself. And again, most of the myspace kids were never going to buy a subscription to Britannica in the first place, whether wiki exists or not.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
