Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced

lid a.k.a. anonymous wrote:

It's just the opposite of what I expect from the popular press,
where I expect incompetent discussion of science, or,
if the left wing is interested in a subject, outright lies.

Yet another reason why these things are to be shunned like the plague:
politics decide what is true and what is not, right?

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

You seem to be completely unaware of the mechanisms that Wikipedia
uses to resolve disputes, which involve such things as developing
rankings of trustworthiness.

Come back as soon as Wikipedias are indexed and ranked on listings like
Thomson's.

A scientist or engineer thinking he or she could rely on Wiki deserves to
be
hung and quartered.

How many research scientists do you actually know?

Loads, and loads, and loads.

Ah, sufficiently few that it would embarrassing to give a numerical
estimate then :-)

Many of them take
the trouble to correct and update Wikipedia

Only the ones not doing research, possibly.

Possibly? Thought you said you knew loads of them?

I know several who bother to keep those Wiki entries they consider
important updated, usually with the donkey work delegated to a student
or contract researcher.

because unlike you they
understand how it works and they already know from experience how
useful it can be.

If only you knew how well i know how knowledge, science, and Wikis work.
But you don't because it can't be found on a Wiki.

I'd be surprised if anyone thought your personal details important
enough for a Wikipedia entry. But how Wikipedia works is very well
documented by Wikipedia, as are the more general topics of scientific
method, etc.. As you could have discovered by a very simple check.

Clearly you're quite happy to post your opinions on a matter of
dispute in a international public forum without even bothering to do
as simple a check as a single one page Google search just in case you
might be mistaken. Am I right in deducing that you have no research
training? :-)

So trust me: everything i wrote about wikipedias so far, everything you are
objecting to, is correct.

You think I should trust someone who makes claims that ten seconds
with Google can disprove? :-)

Neither Wikipedia nor the Encyclopedia Britannica are gold
standards of accuracy. They're both mistaken or biassed often enough
that neither can be used as an academic reference intended to
establish authoritative accuracy. But in technical and scientific
matters both are usually good enough to be very useful first ports of
call in a library research expedition on a topic about which you
currently know little.

I can tell you again that any research scientist who lets on that he or she
is using Wikipedia, even as a starting point, can start looking for another
job, outside research and science, immediately.
And with very good reasons too.

Fortunately my research institute does not agree with you. It's also
obvious you know nothing about the conditions of employment of
academic research scientists, such as tenure. That makes it at least
extremely difficult to fire them on the kinds of silly grounds you're
suggesting.

As indeed is the Web, despite the well known fact that it is among
other things by far the largest collection of dubious nonsense ever
achieved.

That's it: the largest collection of dubious nonsense ever achieved.
You know that, but do not know that Wikis are part of that?

The argument obviously passed high enough over your head that you
didn't even hear the whoosh :-)

You clearly don't have the scientific research connections you're
trying to imply if you don't know how important a modern research
skill it is to be able to use such dubious collections of nonsense as
the World Wide Web, public libraries, and various Wikis, nor how
important the kind of updating mechanisms pioneered by the Wikis are
to the development of the W3C Semantic Web.

Which reminds me, now that we've moved into our new building I ought
to get round to updating the address of the institutional affiliation
in my signature. Surprising that someone as well educated as yourself
in computational research didn't recognise it. It's one of the largest
computational research institutes in the world.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

Chris Malcolm wrote:

How many research scientists do you actually know?

Loads, and loads, and loads.

Ah, sufficiently few that it would embarrassing to give a numerical
estimate then :-)

Rumbled...

Many of them take
the trouble to correct and update Wikipedia

Only the ones not doing research, possibly.

Possibly? Thought you said you knew loads of them?

That concern themselves with Wikis?
Have you been paying attention?

I know several who bother to keep those Wiki entries they consider
important updated, usually with the donkey work delegated to a student
or contract researcher.

Now where do they work...?

I'd be surprised if anyone thought your personal details important
enough for a Wikipedia entry.

I would be too. Hugely surprised.

But how Wikipedia works is very well
documented by Wikipedia, as are the more general topics of scientific
method, etc.. As you could have discovered by a very simple check.

Oh dear.
That makes it all good, does it?

Clearly you're quite happy to post your opinions on a matter of
dispute in a international public forum without even bothering to do
as simple a check as a single one page Google search just in case you
might be mistaken.

Clearly you are full of assumptions.

Am I right in deducing that you have no research
training? :-)

Nope. You'd be wrong.

You think I should trust someone who makes claims that ten seconds
with Google can disprove? :-)

If it wasn't so throughly sad, we would all be laughing.
Google and Wiki, supporting each other...

What did someone write again? "by far the largest collection of dubious
nonsense ever achieved."
How true.

Fortunately my research institute does not agree with you. It's also
obvious you know nothing about the conditions of employment of
academic research scientists, such as tenure. That makes it at least
extremely difficult to fire them on the kinds of silly grounds you're
suggesting.

:-)
So go ahead, write an article, get it accepted for publication, somewhere
where it is read, citing Wikipedia as a reliable source.
Fired? Maybe. Maybe not.
But get another article accepted somewhere? Get even a chabce to present a
poster at a symposium or congres? Not in your lifetime ever again ;-)

The argument obviously passed high enough over your head that you
didn't even hear the whoosh :-)

If that would make you feel more secure in your beliefs, sure... ;-)

You clearly don't have the scientific research connections you're
trying to imply if you don't know how important a modern research
skill it is to be able to use such dubious collections of nonsense as
the World Wide Web, public libraries, and various Wikis, nor how
important the kind of updating mechanisms pioneered by the Wikis are
to the development of the W3C Semantic Web.

You are clearly still running on assumptions.
And you're so far off the mark that you're almost right again. ;-)

Which reminds me, now that we've moved into our new building I ought
to get round to updating the address of the institutional affiliation
in my signature. Surprising that someone as well educated as yourself
in computational research didn't recognise it. It's one of the largest
computational research institutes in the world.

A fine boast.
As a researcher and scientist, you should know how convincing an argument
that is.
You obviously do not.
(You finish the thing and tell us the conclusion. ;-) )

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

And now that Wikipedia (of all things!) is brought into the discussion, i
think it's time to move on.
Sneering at Wikipedia is self serving snobbery. It has been
acknowledged as being as accurate as E. Brit. on technical, scientific
and other non-subjective subjects. That is to say, the error rate in E.
Brit. was similar to Wikipedias error rate.

You must be joking. Either that, or that is a seriously bad book.
The "most votes counts", or even the "loudest votes counts" approach to
knowledge is the worst idea ever proposed, which has resulted in an absolute
abomination.

Not by 'votes' but by an analysis conducted by 'Nature', a highly
regarded general science magazine. This so upset E. Britannica that
they published a wheezing rebuttal. A bit concerned for their
livelihood, I expect.

A scientist or engineer thinking he or she could rely on Wiki deserves to be
hung and quartered. Luckily, references to Wikipedias rarely appear in
papers other than those produced by secondary school pupils.

Who said a scientist or engineer should rely on it? On the other hand
as a general introduction to a very wide range of subjects it is very
useful and well edited in most technical articles.

Engineers and scientists don't rely on the E. Britannica either, but
they certainly use it when looking for an overview of a subject.

The high school and now college that my son attend discourage the use of
Wikipedia for research, but on the basis that it is too easy to copy.

YOU have to acknowledge a certain thing. And that thing is that the
nature of communications is changing as it has over time. Once upon a
time scribes and monks copied information by hand, severely limiting
dissemination (not to mention dissent); then came mass printing from the
Chinese and (later) Gutenberg followed by centuries of print refinement
and content. And now the internet is here (as you may have noticed).

And with that not only is content changing in form; but the form is
affecting the content. This was the lesson of Gutenberg and moveable
type: form influences content.

Wikipedia was lambasted in its early days, but that criticism
continuously ebbs as people contribute to it, refine and correct it.

You're objections to it are little different than the Roman Catholic
Church getting all upset over the power that print gave to Martin Luther
and others.

The real difference between E.Britannica and Wikipedia is the price you
pay to read it.

E. Britannica might figure this out one day, but first they should read
the articles on dinosaurs, evolution and revolution. And their own
versions are quite adequate for the lesson if not the understanding.

(BTW: the personal pronoun in English is capitalized).

No, personal pronouns aren't.

I said , "the" personal pronoun. You used "i", it is "I".


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

You're objections to it are little different than the Roman Catholic

Opps! "Your" ... must not send until reviewed...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

But how Wikipedia works is very well
documented by Wikipedia, as are the more general topics of scientific
method, etc.. As you could have discovered by a very simple check.

Oh dear.
That makes it all good, does it?

Do try to pay attention to the argument. You claimed that that kind of
explanantion could *not* be found in Wikipedia. As you could have
discovered in ten seconds of checking it *can* be found in
Wikipedia. Therefore in a dispute you are willing to post unverified
and false opinions even when the verification would have taken seconds.

If you're having an argument with someone would you not agreee that
that's a very useful thing to have discovered about them?

Clearly you're quite happy to post your opinions on a matter of
dispute in a international public forum without even bothering to do
as simple a check as a single one page Google search just in case you
might be mistaken.

Clearly you are full of assumptions.

My apologies. I made the somewhat jocular but strictly speaking
unjustifiable assumption that you are happy with this state of
affairs. There is no doubt that you did post the opinion that
something could not be found in Wikipedia. It takes ten seconds with
the on-line computer you clearly had access to in order to post that
opinion to discover that it is false. There is no doubt about those
two facts.

In fact now that your unsubstantiated prejudice has been exposed you
are quite possibly unhappy about it. But that too is an assumption. I
can't possibly know how you feel about posting very easily checkable
false claims. All I can know is the verifed fact that you did so.

Am I right in deducing that you have no research
training? :-)

Nope. You'd be wrong.

My sympathies to your teachers.

You think I should trust someone who makes claims that ten seconds
with Google can disprove? :-)

If it wasn't so throughly sad, we would all be laughing.
Google and Wiki, supporting each other...

You seem to be unable to follow a logical argument. Neither of Google
or Wiki is supporting the other in any of the arguments I have so far
put forward. Google is a search engine. It enables people to find
things. You claimed that Wikipedia did not contain a certain kind of
entry. Iy was a moment's work to use Google to find such an entry in
Wikipedia. Having found the thing whose nonexistence had been claimed
the method by which it was found becomes completely irrelevant to the
argument.

You also seem to imagine that I'm making the claim that finding this
item in Wikipedia says something about quality of Wikipedia. I'm
not. My point is purely and simply that in the topic about which we're
arguing, which is the quality of Wikipedia, you claimed that something
did not exist in Wikipedia. I found it very easily indeed, and so can
anyone else who bothers to look.

The point of this particular argument is not the quality of Wikipedia,
but the quality of your opinions about Wikipedia. It is logically
quite possible that both Wikipedia and your opinions of it are equally
rubbish, but I'm making no such claim.

What did someone write again? "by far the largest collection of dubious
nonsense ever achieved."
How true.

The reason I doubted that you had any research training is that during
the entire history of human recorded knowledge the largest collection
of dubious nonsense ever achieved is a title which has always belonged
to whatever happened to be the biggest library at the time. Yet
researchers nevertheless find libraries invaluable research tools. How
come? Because the biggest library always contains lots of useful truth
as well as lots of nonsense. The whole point and skill of library
research is knowing how to find likely looking useful possible truths,
and how to verify them.

Fortunately my research institute does not agree with you. It's also
obvious you know nothing about the conditions of employment of
academic research scientists, such as tenure. That makes it at least
extremely difficult to fire them on the kinds of silly grounds you're
suggesting.

:-)
So go ahead, write an article, get it accepted for publication, somewhere
where it is read, citing Wikipedia as a reliable source.

You really must pay closer attention to the argument. I have not
claimed that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Nor do I claim that the
Web or the Encyclopedia Britannica are reliable sources. In fact you
will be pleased to hear that I have probably red-lined hundreds of
student exercises which made that kind of elementary citation mistake.

My claim is that Wikipedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, and
indeed like any library, is such a useful place to look in one's
search for reliable sources that knowing how to use it is today as
important a research skill as knowing how to use a library.

Fired? Maybe. Maybe not.
But get another article accepted somewhere? Get even a chabce to present a
poster at a symposium or congres? Not in your lifetime ever again ;-)

You're quite right, but since I haven't made the claim that Wikipedia
is a citably reliable primary source of information I can't understand
why you keep banging on about the pretty obvious fact that it isn't.

Which reminds me, now that we've moved into our new building I ought
to get round to updating the address of the institutional affiliation
in my signature. Surprising that someone as well educated as yourself
in computational research didn't recognise it. It's one of the largest
computational research institutes in the world.

A fine boast.

Thanks.

As a researcher and scientist, you should know how convincing an argument
that is.
You obviously do not.
(You finish the thing and tell us the conclusion. ;-) )

You seem to be rather confused. As you quite correctly spotted, I did
not draw a conclusion. I expressed surprise. Expressing surprise
rather than drawing a conclusion is one of a number of common
rhetorical devices for suggesting the possibility of an argument
without going so far as to claim its veracity. If we make the
conventional and not unreasonable assumption that I did that on
purpose it does seem to suggest that I was well aware that the
argument was not convincing. I therefore fail to see how you draw your
conclusion that I obviously did not know that it was not a convincing
argument.

As to your final request, it would not be polite to draw the obvious
conclusion from all this.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Do try to pay attention to the argument. You claimed that that kind of
explanantion could *not* be found in Wikipedia.

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. You're making things up.

Also not a good thing to do as a research scientist. ;-)

But i see where your confused idea stems from: you think that Wikipedia
deciding whether Wikipedia is a trustworthy thingy ("mechanisms that
Wikipedia uses to resolve disputes, which involve such things as developing
rankings of trustworthiness.") is something of value.

That's like accepting a politician's promise that he's all above board, 100%
committed to the promises he made to his voters, "because", he says" he is".
"Trust me, i'm a politician/Wikipedia".
The naivety of it is, quite frankly, stunning!

As you could have
discovered in ten seconds of checking it *can* be found in
Wikipedia. Therefore in a dispute you are willing to post unverified
and false opinions even when the verification would have taken seconds.
If you're having an argument with someone would you not agreee that
that's a very useful thing to have discovered about them?

You mean like we have just discovered that you invent your opponent's
position and rgumentation yourself?
Indeed!

Clearly you are full of assumptions.

My apologies. I made the somewhat jocular but strictly speaking
unjustifiable assumption that you are happy with this state of
affairs. There is no doubt that you did post the opinion that
something could not be found in Wikipedia.

And yet again...

It takes ten seconds with
the on-line computer you clearly had access to in order to post that
opinion to discover that it is false. There is no doubt about those
two facts.

:-)

In fact now that your unsubstantiated prejudice has been exposed you
are quite possibly unhappy about it. But that too is an assumption. I
can't possibly know how you feel about posting very easily checkable
false claims. All I can know is the verifed fact that you did so.

The fact that you think that what you call prejudice against Wikipedias is
unsubstantiated makes your position clear.
Not that it wasn't already.
So is your false assumption that you are right. You are not. Absolutely not.

The fact alone that there is some sort of supervision shows how bad an idea
Wikis basically are. They are only good if and when the experts are left in
charge, blocking all the nuts who would, and do, cherish the opportunity to
have their say on whatever matter possible.
The ideal Wiki, the one that could be acceptable, is one in which only
recognized experts publish things, under the scrutiny of other experts, with
periodical critical reviews.
You will of course know that such a thing already exists. It's 'the thing'
from before some complete idiot thought that letting everyone have a go
would be a good idea.

My sympathies to your teachers.

I wil convey them to them.
My sincere sympathies to everyone who had the misfortune to have been taught
by you.

You think I should trust someone who makes claims that ten seconds
with Google can disprove? :-)

If it wasn't so throughly sad, we would all be laughing.
Google and Wiki, supporting each other...

You seem to be unable to follow a logical argument.

You know, what's worse than arguing against your own assumptions is building
an argument against your own problems grappling with the subject. Not that
it is a bad idea to confront your own shortcomings. But it looks so very bad
when presented like this.

Windmills and Don Quixote, and all that.

Neither of Google
or Wiki is supporting the other in any of the arguments I have so far
put forward. Google is a search engine. It enables people to find
things. You claimed that Wikipedia did not contain a certain kind of
entry. Iy was a moment's work to use Google to find such an entry in
Wikipedia. Having found the thing whose nonexistence had been claimed
the method by which it was found becomes completely irrelevant to the
argument.

I believe the best thing to do here is ask you to find another (?)
nonexisting thing.
It must be hard for you, i know. But you're the one who 'knows' what you are
talking about. The rest of us can only wonder, perhaps hazard a guess.

You also seem to imagine that I'm making the claim that finding this
item in Wikipedia says something about quality of Wikipedia. I'm
not.

Need i point out once again that you are the one who is imagening things?

My point is purely and simply that in the topic about which we're
arguing, which is the quality of Wikipedia, you claimed that something
did not exist in Wikipedia. I found it very easily indeed, and so can
anyone else who bothers to look.

Again, and again, and again.

I'll take you back to the point: knowledge is not a "most votes count"
thing.
The movement that preceded this utter nonsense, the "most cases count"
thing, was bad enough, but workable.
But this is pure nonsense (in every meaning of the word).

The point of this particular argument is not the quality of Wikipedia,

It is.

but the quality of your opinions about Wikipedia.

That's what you like it to be.
Again something research scientists are not supposed to do.

It is logically
quite possible that both Wikipedia and your opinions of it are equally
rubbish, but I'm making no such claim.

"Logically". Would it not also be possible in an illogical or a-logical way?
But i'm very impressed! "Logically"! Another bit of meaningless hot air.

I think you'll have enough to do trying to make sense of the claims you do
make.

What did someone write again? "by far the largest collection of dubious
nonsense ever achieved."
How true.

The reason I doubted that you had any research training is that during
the entire history of human recorded knowledge the largest collection
of dubious nonsense ever achieved is a title which has always belonged
to whatever happened to be the biggest library at the time. Yet
researchers nevertheless find libraries invaluable research tools. How
come? Because the biggest library always contains lots of useful truth
as well as lots of nonsense. The whole point and skill of library
research is knowing how to find likely looking useful possible truths,
and how to verify them.

O dear...
I'l keep it short (just let me know and i'll give you the long version):
First, the obvious flaw in the logic of your argument: "the biggest library"
and "libraries" which are "invaluable research tools" are of course not the
same.
I have yet to see a researcher who would start researching, say, how to make
the best bricks by studying the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical
Care Medicine. Only a very silly research scientist would.
That's why a research library is nothing like Wikipedia or the Internet.

Next, even if a research library would contain last month's issue of the
local tattler, or a PC allowing acces to a Wikipedia, he would still be
crazy to even consider using Wikipedia, unless in complete secrecy.

Finaly, even if he did anyway, he would be laughed out of his research
institution by claiming that a quick search of the Internet turned up a
reference syaing it was o.k. to use a Wikipedia. Now imagine how load the
laughter if if that reference was the Wikipedia itself.

The short reason still is that the basic concept behind Wikipedias is
essentially and absolutely flawed. It has so little to do with what we call
'knowledge', 'science' even, that it is absolutely safe to say it has
nothing to do with knowledge at all (trust me, i really am an expert).

Unless you move it back to the thing we luckily still rely on, the way we
were before such nonsense arrived. But then it wouldn't be a Wiki.
The best Wiki, the only good Wiki, is a Wiki that isn't.

So go ahead, write an article, get it accepted for publication, somewhere
where it is read, citing Wikipedia as a reliable source.

You really must pay closer attention to the argument. I have not
claimed that Wikipedia is a reliable source.

:-) No, no, no.
It really is you who must try to stick to the argument (again). It's
difficult, perhaps (is it?), but give it a try anyway.
I don't care whether *you* *have* claimed that Wikipedia is a reliable
source or not.

Nor do I claim that the
Web or the Encyclopedia Britannica are reliable sources. In fact you
will be pleased to hear that I have probably red-lined hundreds of
student exercises which made that kind of elementary citation mistake.

Pleased to hear that indeed!

My claim is that Wikipedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, and
indeed like any library, is such a useful place to look in one's
search for reliable sources that knowing how to use it is today as
important a research skill as knowing how to use a library.

Yes. That's your claim.
We have been dealing with it off and on already. Even though it is not the
topic being discussed here.

There is one good point in your claim. And that is that it may be (you say
that it is, but that's still unsubstantiated - to borrow a phrase) usefull
to know how to use Wikipedias.
The thing about it that is good is that it might be considered good to have
certain skills, even if they are of no use, if only to make sure that it is
not your lack of skills that is letting your research down.

The rest of it is nonsense.

Fired? Maybe. Maybe not.
But get another article accepted somewhere? Get even a chabce to present
a
poster at a symposium or congres? Not in your lifetime ever again ;-)

You're quite right, but since I haven't made the claim that Wikipedia
is a citably reliable primary source of information I can't understand
why you keep banging on about the pretty obvious fact that it isn't.


Which reminds me, now that we've moved into our new building I ought
to get round to updating the address of the institutional affiliation
in my signature. Surprising that someone as well educated as yourself
in computational research didn't recognise it. It's one of the largest
computational research institutes in the world.

A fine boast.

Thanks.

As a researcher and scientist, you should know how convincing an argument
that is.
You obviously do not.
(You finish the thing and tell us the conclusion. ;-) )

You seem to be rather confused. As you quite correctly spotted, I did
not draw a conclusion. I expressed surprise. Expressing surprise
rather than drawing a conclusion is one of a number of common
rhetorical devices for suggesting the possibility of an argument
without going so far as to claim its veracity.

If i am confused, it must be because you are.
But no (i'm not. Sorry!).

You expressed surprise. About the fact that you needed to spell out the
meaningless boast.
As a rhetorical device, for not having to spell out the boast.

Nope. Whatever way you look at it, it still is a childish attempt to
impress.
Childish, because you so obviously believed it might work.

But don't worry, nobody has any reason to doubt your boast's 'veracity'.
It's completely pointless, silly.
But don't you worry: we will believe that you have or had a job at a school
of informatics.

There is a rather pertinent conclusion to be drawn from all that.
But that too you did not understand.

If we make the
conventional and not unreasonable assumption that I did that on
purpose

Oh yes! Let's *assume* that you did that on purpose. ;-)

it does seem to suggest that I was well aware that the
argument was not convincing. I therefore fail to see how you draw your
conclusion that I obviously did not know that it was not a convincing
argument.

That apears to be the thing that runs all through this thread. You failing
to see.

As to your final request, it would not be polite to draw the obvious
conclusion from all this.

:-)
That's why i haven't.

Alan Browne wrote:

Not by 'votes' but by an analysis conducted by 'Nature', a highly regarded
general science magazine. This so upset E. Britannica that they published
a wheezing rebuttal. A bit concerned for their livelihood, I expect.

I think you do not understand: "votes" are what drives Wikipedias.
It's the new paradigm, after statistics, which replaced 'mechanics', which
replaced dogma and doctrine, which replaced myth.
But it overstepped the boundaries. With Wikipedias, we're not even back to
dogma and doctrine, or myth. All we are left with is opinion. Unqualified
opinion.

And if it only were "most votes count". It also is "most access to
computers", "most time to waste sitting behind a computer" (like i'm doing
here), and more of similar things. In short: "the loudest votes count".
Our friend-with-no-name gave an example, a few posts up, what realm
Wikipedias take us in.

"Nature" is a magazine (a bunch of magazines really).
What is published in a good magazine must get through a review stage. But it
is not judged on veracity or correctness. That's the job of scientists
reading what is published.

So don't be fooled by the fact that something is published into believeing
it is true.
And maybe you should look at the E. Brit's rebuttal again.

Who said a scientist or engineer should rely on it?

I didn't.
I said they should *not* rely on it. Else they deserve "to be hung and
quartered". Remember?

And look what happens. Even you come out in defence of Wikipedias!
;-)

On the other hand as a general introduction to a very wide range of
subjects it is very useful and well edited in most technical articles.

How do you know?

Engineers and scientists don't rely on the E. Britannica either, but they
certainly use it when looking for an overview of a subject.

Not the ones who know their field.
They would only be annoyed by the general drift of the articles, glossing
over details, even introducing falsehoods and errors, just to keep the
length of the article down.
And they do not need to...!

The high school and now college that my son attend discourage the use of
Wikipedia for research, but on the basis that it is too easy to copy.

That too, yes. Though there is very fine software that helps uncovering
attempts to copy.
Ask Chris Malcolm. He might be able to tell you more about that.

But believe me, that's not (!) the only reason.

YOU have to acknowledge a certain thing. And that thing is that the
nature of communications is changing as it has over time. Once upon a
time scribes and monks copied information by hand, severely limiting
dissemination (not to mention dissent); then came mass printing from the
Chinese and (later) Gutenberg followed by centuries of print refinement
and content. And now the internet is here (as you may have noticed).

???
Why on earth do you think that i am not acknowledging that the nature of
communications is changing?

And with that not only is content changing in form; but the form is
affecting the content. This was the lesson of Gutenberg and moveable
type: form influences content.

And that's where the trouble begins.
Let's make the Chinese (or Gutenberg) the first, and real inventor of
moveable type, just because we now can!
What joy!

Wikipedia was lambasted in its early days, but that criticism continuously
ebbs as people contribute to it, refine and correct it.

Nope.
It' just like digital photography. And the price of bread.
Persist long enough, and people will forget they don't like it, eventually
think it is the best thing that ever happened.

You're objections to it are little different than the Roman Catholic
Church getting all upset over the power that print gave to Martin Luther
and others.

That's completely nuts, showing you do not understand the problem at all.

The real difference between E.Britannica and Wikipedia is the price you
pay to read it.

There we are.
You absolutely have not even the slightest idea of what it is all about.

E. Britannica might figure this out one day, but first they should read
the articles on dinosaurs, evolution and revolution. And their own
versions are quite adequate for the lesson if not the understanding.

Oh dear...
You are one of the (many; you are not alone) reasons why things go downhill
in such an alarmingy pace.
Unstoppable, i fear.

(BTW: the personal pronoun in English is capitalized).

No, personal pronouns aren't.

I said , "the" personal pronoun. You used "i", it is "I".

Yes, you indeed have used the definite article.
I can do that too: "the" personal pronoun "we" in English is capitalized.
Rats! Wrong again!

Alan Browne wrote:

Opps! "Your" ... must not send until reviewed...

Don't worry.
We are quite capable of distinguishing content from form... ;-)

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Not by 'votes' but by an analysis conducted by 'Nature', a highly
regarded general science magazine. This so upset E. Britannica
that they published a wheezing rebuttal. A bit concerned for their
livelihood, I expect.

I think you do not understand: "votes" are what drives Wikipedias.

There is no 'voting' on Wikipedia. It is continuous editing, adding,
refining. Most articles are quite good, some need references added,
grammar cleaned up, structure improved, etc. But, it remains, that most
articles are quite good. Some articles have flags questioning their
neutrality. These need opposing points of view or consensus to balance
them out. From that point of view it is no more a 'voting' system than
the power wielded by editors at E. Brit and other publications. This is
the peer review process of Wikipedia. Except it is never ending and
always sharpening.

All we are left with is opinion. Unqualified opinion.

Ironic. Your whole argument is nothing but opinion, whereas in
Wikipedia most articles (esp. scientific and engineering) are backed by
references and links to supporting material, papers, books, etc.

The other side of this coin of course, is that YOU can add to Wikipedia
and increase its value. YOU can correct what you find is not
sufficiently clear or correct. YOU can add opposing points of view (for
both subjective (and where applicable), non-subjective matter.

That is the point. But you don't understand it because at its roots it
takes away something from you. I suspect you fear the same thing that
E. Brit fears: lack of exclusivity.

snippedEOD

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.