tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post8090896328815053058..comments2024-03-13T09:47:40.487+00:00Comments on Cockpit Conversation: Knowledge is not a Democratic PrincipleAviatrixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13634111275860140084noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-47577523768113461402010-11-03T17:00:21.419+00:002010-11-03T17:00:21.419+00:00My wife once had a math problem graded as wrong (i...My wife once had a math problem graded as wrong (in middle or junior high school, IIRC) because she was the only one that got the answer she did. She didn't see her error, so she brought it to her father, a university Mathematics professor. Turns out she was the only one that got it right. The teacher finally allowed a 1/2 score on that problem. Grading on consensus shouldn't be applied to math.<br /><br /><br />Regarding Wikipedia, I agree with the shoutacracy with regard to determining notability. I spent a good while reviewing and improving a biographical piece only to have it removed because the person was "sufficiently notable" in the mind of the editor deleting the article. This has also applied to article on groups I've supported. It gets worse when there are national interests involved. Turkey and the Armenians make a good example of this.Travellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263645693176777616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-28982063800765656462010-11-01T19:57:23.965+00:002010-11-01T19:57:23.965+00:00I generally trust information I find on the Wikipe...I generally trust information I find on the Wikipedia site (some topics have more reliable information than others, I'm sure). Answers.com I find very problematic. Just as an example, I found this question: "What is the Latin prefix meaning one thousand?" The Answer was "Kilo eg. 20 kilometers" which is simply wrong (Kilo is from the Greek, not Latin).Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11376251876216401358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-22081618349981266322010-11-01T15:47:10.710+00:002010-11-01T15:47:10.710+00:00My above response was written while I was rushing ...My above response was written while I was rushing to get to a flight (the kind where you sit in back), and it gave me plenty of time to reflect on your topic.<br /><br />It occurred to me that a lot of business projects (such as the one I was just leaving) also suffer from a kind of democratization of knowledge. Instead of bringing in something akin to an "expert" (a consultant, an academic, a professional, or simply someone who's done the said thing all their life), project teams often merely assemble a mostly unqualified set of "stakeholders" and "project champions" who vote on what the best course of action is, and steer the project. Everyone's actions and comments are duly noted, silly decisions are made, disaster happens, and then there's a "lessons learned" review, and the whole cycle repeats.<br /><br />Now, there is something scientifically valuable in making a mistake, learning from it, and moving forward, but the group's initial decision was based on the assent of people whose only collective qualification was that they could be coaxed to agree on a next step. ... in the way that a bunch of small children can coax each other to taunt a bulldog.dpiercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03397601206317363858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-89482072915356659762010-11-01T03:51:11.380+00:002010-11-01T03:51:11.380+00:00Thank you everyone for the comments on this one. I...Thank you everyone for the comments on this one. I'm glad you understood it in the way I intended. I acknowledge the poor example; it was just what got me started. <br /><br />I grant to the Wikipedia people that the information on the site is good and useful, and probably does settle out on being mostly citeable facts. I think the shoutocracy aspect comes in with regards to what is insufficiently notable or otherwise included or excluded. Not that that doesn't happen through any editorship anywhere.Aviatrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634111275860140084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-30955210059475484622010-10-31T19:36:37.708+00:002010-10-31T19:36:37.708+00:00Dear Trix:
I believe it was the late Daniel Patri...Dear Trix:<br /><br />I believe it was the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who observed that "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts."<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />FrankFrank Van Hastehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10821687850881538546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-63737886922061654122010-10-31T18:02:55.045+00:002010-10-31T18:02:55.045+00:00Actually, it's even scarier than your conclusi...Actually, it's even scarier than your conclusion. It's not just shouty people on the internet; in some academic quarters (critical theory, for example), there is appears to be an active rejection of empirical facts and logic. I was once criticised for my 'outmoded empirical thinking' and, when I pointed out that an argument was circular and therefore not very useful, was asked by whose rules a circular argument was logically incorrect. I wish I was making these examples up and that this wasn't a discussion with a tutor at a respected British University. I retired from the conversation, unable to see how it might be possible to engage with anyone who regards logic as the tool of the patriarchy and the whole of the Enlightenment as a deeply misguided period of history. Fortunately 'theory' hasn't got its claws into science and engineering yet, probably because physics has a way of asserting its reality very forcefully if you try and ignore its laws because you don't like the sound of them.townmousehttp://cityexile.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-51593155078521856202010-10-31T14:51:34.883+00:002010-10-31T14:51:34.883+00:00Hello Aviatrix,
While some areas of science are i...Hello Aviatrix,<br /><br />While some areas of science are indeed getting more expensive, the economies of scale and freedom of information in other areas are making previously expensive science experiments within the reach of the average person.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.makezine.com" rel="nofollow">Make</a> has a science section that is currently looking at home brew space 'exploration'. Sending a camera up to 100,000 ft is possible, and not exceptionally difficult or expensive (for what you get!)<br /><br />I guess there is a lot of inaccuracy out there. But there really always has been. It's still up to the individual to call BS or not, to try it out for themselves or not.<br /><br />Then again, I grew up without the internet, with parents who let us try things for ourselves. I have proven to myself many times over that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Martynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-51041480838405922162010-10-31T13:48:34.104+00:002010-10-31T13:48:34.104+00:00Nothing is perfect, but compared to other corners ...Nothing is perfect, but compared to other corners of the internet, I think wikipedia works quite well.<br /><br />It's not like school books are never biased. What bothers me more is the usage, which is worst when you combine wikipedia with mobile internet. When you sit together with some folks at a party or in a restaurant, and the discussion goes toward a certain who-did-what- or how-stuff-works-topic, people tend to stop finding the answer in a discussion and more and more just pull out a smartphone to check what wikipedia says. That's very sad, sometimes.<br /><br />It's very important to have some mentors and peers who you trust and who enjoy discussing things with you instead of telling you to look stuff up online or rtfm.zbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-26621578938085679522010-10-31T09:49:30.000+00:002010-10-31T09:49:30.000+00:00Wikipedia is kind of a shoutocracy ...
That depen...<i>Wikipedia is kind of a shoutocracy</i> ...<br /><br />That depends on which little community within Wikipedia you're dealing with. I've seen some shoutocracy there, but it's the minority of content I go for. Wikipedia works best when you get involved in the content you disagree with.<br /><br />Regarding answer sites, yes, they're essentially useless except for getting answers to things you can test right away, like DVR settings.dpiercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03397601206317363858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000144.post-49442663376981572242010-10-31T07:13:52.023+00:002010-10-31T07:13:52.023+00:00I agree with your overall conclusion, that knowled...I agree with your overall conclusion, that knowledge is on its soundest footing when people can reproduce it.<br /><br />But I'm confused about why you're using an example of the worst of Yahoo Answers (Answers.com is also an unrelated site) as a basis for labeling Wikipedia a "shoutocracy." The sites are vastly different. Wikipedia actually has sound policies emphasizing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability" rel="nofollow">verifiability</a> and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" rel="nofollow">neutral point of view </a>. Are those policies enforced perfectly? No, of course not, and it needs to keep improving. However, people insert biased and inaccurate information into all media, including traditional "reliable sources". Part of what makes Wikipedia unique is the way its revision history allows you to see who is perpetuating inaccuracy. The site is also increasingly emphasizing the importance of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources" rel="nofollow">citing sources</a>, and unfounded arguments ("shouting") count for less every day.Matthew Flaschenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01906171434345454278noreply@blogger.com