Comments on: Standards of Evidence – Wikipedia Edition http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/ Your Daily Fix of Neuroscience, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:06:45 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1 By: SimonW http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67547 Tue, 01 Apr 2014 05:47:37 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67547 “Unfortunately the contradiction is that, in theory, anyone can edit or add to Wikipedia. Hence it either has to apply a standard or drop the pretence that the material it presents is ‘open source’ as it is not possible to do both.”

Wikipedia claim to be “free” not “open source”. Free doesn’t imply no standards. Anyone can edit wikipedia, your edits will likely be rejected if they are not good. Free means you can create your own copy of wikipedia, and allow your own edits, just don’t be surprised if no one is interested in reading it. Exactly the same process happens in free software.

]]>
By: darrenyorston http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67411 Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:26:11 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67411 Hello Steve,

Long time fan, first time poster!!

Very interesting topic. I thought you might find this story interesting as it is on the same topic:

https://theconversation.com/navigating-the-online-information-maze-should-students-trust-Wikipedia-24559

Instead of attacking the medium of distribution we need to apply some basic thinking skills to evaluate information. Its a shame that many of our academics seem to have missed the need to learn critical thinking skills and are stuck in the age of parchment. Civilisation is changing and we need to keep up with our method.

Thanks for your insights!

]]>
By: BillyJoe7 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67357 Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:11:17 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67357 Goddamn, now our little kangaroo wants to hop into climate change.

]]>
By: Bruce http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67353 Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:14:58 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67353 Steve12:

“I will say this – there are people who ask interesting questions about why the consensus is what it is and foster discussion”

Yup, you are right.

Not much more to say really…

]]>
By: grabula http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67346 Thu, 27 Mar 2014 05:02:17 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67346 “Unfortunately the contradiction is that, in theory, anyone can edit or add to Wikipedia. Hence it either has to apply a standard or drop the pretence that the material it presents is ‘open source’ as it is not possible to do both.”

They have a standard. The whole point of the article above is that they have standards. Man, you really are just trolling aren’t you.

]]>
By: steve12 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67342 Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:31:04 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67342 Bruce

Just wanna say that I agree. You’re right – nowhere to go with this!

I will say this – there are people who ask interesting questions about why the consensus is what it is and foster discussion. Will’s just a child yelling.

]]>
By: Will Nitschke http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67329 Thu, 27 Mar 2014 01:27:05 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67329 @ Steven Novella

Also Steven, since you wrote that the debates on the topic of global warming have no validity (whatever that intentional vagueness means?) and since you don’t accept the existence of a ‘pause’ would you care to comment on this video –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PxYeBqG6H58

I would be interested in your reaction and if you have anything substantive to say, other than label or name call, or object to the “tone”.

Thank you.

]]>
By: Will Nitschke http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67311 Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:30:30 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67311 @ Steven Novella

“Will – your inferences are all incorrect.”

If you read my post properly, rather than assume a nefarious agenda, you would see that my ‘inferences’ were posed as questions. I was not actually able to ‘infer ‘what your position was, as, with many of your posts, you tend to list the issues but then hesitate in taking a position, yet seem to hint that you have one.

“Wikipedia wants to be a reliable resource of information. Good for them. This requires standards. There are certain generic intellectual virtues that should be part of any such standards – valid logic, verifying facts, sourcing claims, etc. The wheel does not have to be reinvented. Wikipedia’s challenge was adapting these virtues to the wiki format. They are doing a pretty good job. There is always going to be someone on the losing side of quality control, and they will typically whine about the standards. That’s just human nature. Let them whine.”

Unfortunately the contradiction is that, in theory, anyone can edit or add to Wikipedia. Hence it either has to apply a standard or drop the pretence that the material it presents is ‘open source’ as it is not possible to do both.

Of course, as usual, you ignored my pertinent questions and simply went off (again) on some minor sideline I’m assuming you felt you could deal with. Who makes the standards for general discourse, or how does Wikipedia intend to apply them? What are you hinting at here? Should such standards be applied to public intellectual debates? If not, why mention them in the opening remarks of your post?

Don’t be scared to try to answer some tough questions on your positions. I don’t bite, or even if I do, in the grand scheme of things this exchange is not all that important. What you do in your practice, and what I do in my business, is far more important.

]]>
By: Bruce http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67306 Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:09:10 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67306 steve12,

I think you hit the nail on the head. The best way to get someone to respond to you directly is to disagree with them, agreeing is not only conversation ender (read: “you are right!”; “yes, I am, thanks!”) but is also seen as a weak response as it somehow implies you have no opinion of your own. It is much harder to agree with the consensus and keep the discussion going and draw attention to yourself than it is to disagree and then sit back and watch the direct responses to your comments come washing in.

Will has crossed over very much now (quite a while ago actually) and is not interesting in any way as he seems to have abandoned all attempts at actually reading and comprehending the original blog anymore and is showing that all he is interested in is getting a response by quite blatantly trying to dig at Steven directly.

]]>
By: steve12 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/#comment-67295 Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:48:21 +0000 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=6431#comment-67295 People who say outrageous / stupid things for attention always generate interest at first, and then become BORING.

If Will hadn’t crossed over before, he certainly has now.

]]>
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/feed/
theness.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-51
17791
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:UYSGQEJZ3C7TBGMFKUOM5LVYT3VJNASZ
<urn:uuid:9dddfa34-2934-4392-8e3c-2854228d674a>
2017-12-17T13:47:18Z
104.196.193.172
application/rss+xml
sha1:AZ4DF36RSB426ZIM5NEJTCR4JJARVH4U
<urn:uuid:601ac6aa-b076-4209-b5be-f576390e0be2>
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/standards-of-evidence-wikipedia-edition/feed/
length
response
<urn:uuid:b566e6f8-7de9-487e-9e45-6acc27c14768>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-183-105-150.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-51
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for December 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf