JB On The Problems Of Wiki

**ApologiaPhoenix** · October 11th 2010, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by JB

Originally posted by little_monkey

Sorry to disagree with you. If you read something on any topic from any source, and it is incorrect then you should be able to point it out. If you can't, then you are in no position to say, "oh well, it's from an unreliable source, so it must be wrong". That is pure silliness. When I read something, and if I think it's wrong, then I doublecheck with other sources to see if it's right or wrong. But I do not dismiss it outright.

Having said that, I suspect that you are dismissive of sources like wiki because it probably often does not agree with you. But that's tough luck. If you think that wiki carries wrong information then you should be able to show what it is that is wrong and from what sources did you get that it is wrong.

No one here has said, "Oh well, it's from an unreliable source, so it must be wrong." The point is, only an idiot relies on sources that are unreliable in general. You are doing that, and you are continuously distorting everything everyone else says while resolutely mocking your betters. Those are hallmarks of an inveterate idiot. Congratulations.

Wikipedia is good for some things, like very fundamental information, if you use it right. In that respect, it's comparable to, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. But frankly, I think encyclopedias in general should be avoided as well. Go to the primary sources; go to scholarly secondary sources that can really engage the data and are written by actual authorities on the subject; but don't rely on an encyclopedia.

If you want to make a case and not get laughed at, then try reading a book for a change. (You've heard of these "books", yes? They contain pages with lots of symbols called 'letters' on them; you can pick up these mysterious objects and do this thing called "reading"...) You want to know about Hitler's views? Then glance at Wikipedia for a quite bit of basic info if you like, but then go read his works and his speeches; study the history of the time by consulting works by historical scholars; read books about Hitler and religion written by real credentialed experts. And then, once you've done that, you'll have earned a hearing. But not when you just post a link to an easily edited online encyclopedia and challenge everyone to refute it. Instead, if you think it's convincing, then you can be man enough to see if a study of the other sources bears that out. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone should listen to someone whose sole source is Wikipedia, for the same reason - and more, because it can be freely edited by successful pranksters - that I would say the same about a person who relied exclusively on another general (i.e., not specialized) encyclopedia. It just isn't enough. It might pass in elementary school, but it shouldn't pass anywhere else. Not because the encyclopedia happens to be woefully inaccurate, but because exclusive reliance on it gives the impression that it's authoritative. It isn't. It's a tool to get enough basic information so that you can go and surpass it by reading some of the real scholarly discussions, or - often better yet - the primary sources themselves.

Here's the thing about people like you with your method. It's a terrible way to go about things. If you meet a bloke who gets a chain e-mail and gobbles up a conspiracy theory, why should it be your responsibility to educate him in spite of himself and against his will? I mean, certainly, you could go do all the legwork and do him a favor - but are you obligated to? Does it imply some intellectual defect or lack of capacity in you if you decline? Of course not. He is the one who shirked his intellectual responsibility by buying hook, line, and sinker into the first thing that came across his screen, regardless of the source, without bothering to get further into it. And suppose that this fellow should be an arrogant son-of-a-broken-clock who insists on propagating his new views - whose ultimate responsibility is it to get information from real experts? His, of course, not yours. You would be quite justified in simply ignoring him, and probably even in just mocking him. After all, he's the one who's shirking the intellectual responsibility of getting information from reliable, credentialed sources - and looking into both sides of the issue - before spouting his mouth off about it. Now, you could very well take it upon yourself to re-educate him. That would be a greatly charitable act on your part there; it would not constitute a natural responsibility of yours. It would be, in a word, supererogatory. You would fail in no duty by simply telling him to go read a (relevant) book for a change and then come back if he still thinks he can make a case once he's become adequately informed. And so it is with us here, and with you playing the role of this miseducated, arrogant fool. Would it be merciful for us to go out of our way to spoonfeed you an education? Perhaps. On the downside, it might perpetuate the misconception that you're coming from an initial position of deserving it - which you are not. But we certainly don't owe you an education if you aren't willing to take a real step yourself. You should be thankful, quite frankly, that we're even dignifying you with our mockery.

See all these people you're talking to here? Yeah, we actually read these things called "books" - you know, the things I mentioned earlier. Not just enjoyable literature, but actual scholarly works on the various subjects that interest us. That way we get to have a well-orbed understanding that goes past the surface level. And that's far beyond what Wikipedia - or, as JPH is fond of calling it, the "Abomination that Causes Misinformation" - will ever get you.

Unfortunately, based on a later post in this thread, I've rewarded JB for being a procrastinator.