Thread: Wong Fei Hung vs Wikipedia
6/25/2010 7:05pm, #41
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
friendly tip: remove head from ass and chill out. All the teenagers here might withhold their knowledge from you. Haven't you seen the Karate Kid? He won at the end, in case you didn't notice.
6/25/2010 7:06pm, #42
6/25/2010 7:08pm, #43
6/25/2010 7:13pm, #44
The African elephant population has tripled in the last 6 months. Wikipedia proved it, until the illuminati moved in and white washed it
Here's the old article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...rican_Elephant
6/25/2010 7:14pm, #45
6/25/2010 7:14pm, #46
6/25/2010 7:14pm, #47
Edit: let me explain ad hominem: rather than talking about Wong Fei Hung, the wiki entry on him, or anything about the OP, your collective decision is to deride me, personally, in the threads, in PMs, and more.
As much time as I spend trying to have a serious debate,
If I was here to argue I'd be debating you bullet by bullet. I am just pointing out the picture in Wiki happens to be the same picture all the other sites/books about Fei Hung have, and they all claim it is "supposed" but "questionable". I wanted to know if anything knew why this picture is considered "questionable".
you spend twice the time trying to be smart asses and attacking me as a person.
6/25/2010 7:16pm, #48
Everyone knows "Please" is either a Strawman or an Appeal to Authority
6/25/2010 7:22pm, #49
Well, thanks for demonstrating that you WERE defending Wikipedia and were thus lying previously.
Now, on to the Nature article. If you were truly a graduate student, you could see the deadly limitations to the article right away. For one thing, the article itself was not peer-reviewed. Have you ever seen a copy of Nature? It has a news feature well, a peer-reviewed study section, and even occasionally runs short fiction in its back of the book section. (I've published fiction in it twice.) The article you don't bother to cite—you simply cite an article about it, so I shudder to think of where you attended graduate school—was in the news section. It's not nearly so rigorous as you seem to think it is.
It's too bad too, as a real study would have pointed out a few things. Namely, the methodological error involved in simply counting up errors—errors in unit of text isn't a good metric since Wikipedia entries are often full of fluff. That reduces the "error rate" by raising the amount of correct trivia in an article.
Nor were errors operationalized. For example, EB was dinged for spelling the Italian town "Crotone" instead of "Crotona." (Incidentally, Crotone is considered correct by many sources.) Is that the same sort of error as claiming, for example, that isometric exercises lead to a 32% increase in strength based on a layperson's misreading of an abstract on thumb abduction?
Further, Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, it is crowd-reviewed. (Its sources may be peer-reviewed, it may be cites from journalism, it may even be citations from blog entries!) This is important, because some people don't know what they're talking about. For example, you don't seem to recognize that the study you are talking about contends that Wikipedia contains 31% more errors than EB. That's rather different than your claim, Grad School, that Wiki is credible 99.9% of the time.
Nor does the study, which looked only at various articles in the sciences, legitimate for a discussion of Wikipedia's accuracy when it comes to fields with a greater number of competing schools of thought. Here's an interesting article on Wikipedia as history:
Then there is just the issue of emphasis. Compare, for example, the length and utility of the following two entries.
Nathanael West, the novelist and subject of at least two biographies and a volume of critical work, plus innumerable essays and papers:
Also, I'll quote the complete "Discussion" part of the entry, where Wikipedians do the hard work of figuring out how to best write the entries:
's a start. Available biographies contradict each other, I tried to use the most likely information I could find. Calieber 19:57, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC) The introduction isn't exactly correct, since he legally adopted the name in 1926.--Janneman 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wheeoo! They must be tired.
Now compare West's entry to that of X-23, the comic book character. (She's a female clone of Wolverine):
So, where would you begin, Grad School, in determining where the "critical omissions" lie in West's entry? Is X-23's entry to be considered some sort of standard length? Is it overlong? Why or why not? Should the number of correct facts in X-23's entry be sufficient to outweigh the short shrift West gets? These aren't just hypothetical questions—what is a "critical omission" is an important part of the Nature report. Have you seen EB's refutation of the study?
If EB's refutations of various specific "errors" are all correct, by the way, then EB would end up being far more than 31% more accurate than Wikipedia. Heck, even if half of them are, it would be sufficient to blow Wikipedia entirely out of the water.
6/25/2010 7:23pm, #50