Re: Wikipedia & Music Theory

On Oct 3, 11:56 am, SleepyHead <simonharp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3 Oct, 16:51, w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. B. Wood) wrote:

Hello, all, and sorry to be a spoil sport here but I continue to see the
same individuals (I won't name names)

I will.

I'm one of the individuals mentioned and I do it for a couple of
reasons.

1) Wiki provides me with a free, brief, high-level overview of topic X
with references. This means:

a) I don't have to pay someone besides my ISP to access it;
b) I don't have to read pages and pages of stuff I'm not interested in
order to garner the basic facts;
c) I can look up other sources of information to verify what I'm
reading by using the references, google, and my intelligence (such as
it is);
d) Other people can do the same too.

That is fine. It sounds like you are using it as a beginning as John
is saying and as I always have said. The problem is that if it is
PRESENTED as fact, then many people believe that it is fact. Yes,
there are some that are very good. Still, most of them are practically
cut and pasts of real research. That is somewhat fine, but constant
reference to Wiki gives it more credibility than it earns. Personally,
I am more impressed by a citation that is the source from a well
documented Wiki post. When reading a Wiki post, I go first to the
discussion and comments on the article. To do less is just rolling the
dice relative to accuracy. Used properly, it is very useful. Taken as
a serious source is still a shot in the dark.


2) Usenet is somewhere I come to debate topics which interest me with
likeminded people: I don't necessarily come here to collect facts
because usenet is a place where opinion is rife and fact hard to come
by. I would advise anyone who comes to usenet in order to collect
facts (unless it's facts about opinions) that they would be better off
visiting a well-stocked university library and/or talking to an expert
in their field of interest.

This again, to me at least, seems to be NOT the problem that John is
pointing out primarily. BUT the citations of Wiki are only a click or
two away and then you have a better documentation of what is closer to
real information. The very nature of Wiki, makes only a step more
credible than places like r.m.t. that allows anyone to say anything
without ANY logic or documentation and then use their own post as a
source of proving that it is valid!

I enjoy debating topics, but there is no reason that the facts can't
be accurate. I was noticing that Palin used some of the same spin
techniques, the same "talking point" replies that answer different
questions than were asked and then comes back with a spin on their mis
quoted or simply made up "facts" as a source to prove what they think
(or want you to think) is true. It doesn't have to be that way. If one
want to cite an article, that article should be read and checked for
accuracy to at least some standard and then presented for what it is.
That is really all that John was saying. CMIIAW! Wiki is not really
very authoritative but it does lead to more authoritative links. When
ever possible, just put in those links. If there are no documentation,
well, what's wrong with stating your opinion for what it is? An
opinion is fine and if it is backed up with good reason and common
sense or logic, well that is much better and more truthful than to
back it up with a dubious source.


continually quoting wikipedia as if it is some final, universal authority. It's certainly useful as a quickie info source but I would not place heavy reliance on the accuracy or factual content of its articles. I wonder if any universities allow wikipedia articles to be referenced in research papers. As typical of an encyclopedia we usually don't have a clue as to the identity or credentials of the author(s). But at least with a printed encyclopedia we have the reputation of a publisher such as Britannica.

Just because it's written on paper doesn't mean it's true: I cite Mein
Kampf as an example, and, having done that close the circle by
observing that the length described in Godwin's Law is sometimes not
so much long, as short.

No, but you can read Mein Kampf and make your own conclusions. Reading
it gives you the truth about what Mein Kampf is. Reading about
someone's undocumented or explained opinion of what is in Mein Kampf
is NOT. It may reflect what Mein Kampf is saying or it may not. Only
by going to the source can you really know what Mein Kampf actually
does and does not say. The rest is only opinion.


And just because it's on Wiki doesn't mean it's false. I citehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthas an example - an article which
covers (albeit briefly) all the things I covered during my philosophy
undergrad days. It represents, IMO, a very good introduction to the
vexed topic of truth as discussed in Western Analytic Philosophy of
the last 200 or so years.

Maybe it does, but the only way you know this is because you actually
read the sources in your undergrad days! You could write a Wiki
article covering what you learned. That is fine. It would be a
truthful article of what YOU got out of your studies. This may or may
not be the absolute truth or the only thing or even the best
conclusion of the studies that you had done. It might! But then it
might not! My article of a study of the same material may be very
different. Yes, opinions may be correct. But then again, since they
are opinions, they might not be either.



I would advise anyone who is interested in facts and who sees a link
on usenet to a Wiki article to adopt the scientific method: Keep your
mind open, but cultivate a healthy scepticism towards finality in any
field of investigation.

That is describing my opinion and is why I think that you are not the
real focus of what John is saying. I know that it is not what I am
saying! Yes, use Wiki, but then use it for what it is good for and
that is to give you a starting place of further research.

LJS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wikipedia & Music Theory
    ... reading by using the references, google, and my intelligence (such as ... reference to Wiki gives it more credibility than it earns. ... I don't necessarily come here to collect facts ... because usenet is a place where opinion is rife and fact hard to come ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Wikipedia & Music Theory
    ... reading by using the references, google, and my intelligence (such as ... reference to Wiki gives it more credibility than it earns. ... I don't necessarily come here to collect facts ... because usenet is a place where opinion is rife and fact hard to come ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: GP2X
    ... Tom Lucas wrote: ... That wiki that Isaac posted a link for will tell you the facts. ... opinion it is both a good product and a good idea - basically a linux ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: RIH Zarqawi
    ... Wiki is under serious fire (primarily because they *are* ... The facts are fine, Mr. ... The reason, as I've said a half dozen times, was to secure the wells so ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: GP2X
    ... That wiki that Isaac posted a link for will tell you the facts. ... opinion it is both a good product and a good idea - basically a linux ... The price is good, too. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
Loading